UC-NRLF 


lhe  Transition  of  a  Typical  Frontier 

with  illustrations  from 

The  Life  of  Henry  Hastings  Sibley, 

Fur  Trader,  First  Delegate  in  Congress  from  Minnesota  Territory, 

and  First  Governor  of  the  State  of  Minnesota 


A  THESIS 

SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 
FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


WILSON  PORTER  SHORTRIDGE,  M.A. 


IN  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  THE 
UNIVERSITY  OF  MINNESOTA 


1919 


EXCHANGE 


I 


«* 


The  Transition  of  a  Typical  Frontier 

with  illustrations  from 

The  Life  of  Henry  Hastings  Sibley, 

Fur  Trader,  First  Delegate  in  Congress  from  Minnesota  Territory, 
and  First  Governor  of  the  State  of  Minnesota 


A  THESIS 

\ 

SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 
FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


WILSON  PORTER  SHORTRIDGE,  M.A. 


IN  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  THE 
UNIVERSITY  OF  MINNESOTA 


1919 


L 


SEljr  (Hollrgtat*  $rt*a 

GEORGE  BANTA  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 

MENASHA,  Wia 


a? 

■ 


PREFACE 

This  account  of  frontier  transition  is  a  study  in  the  history 
of  the  West.  If  the  West  be  thought  of  as  a  period  rather  than 
a  place,  then  the  study  of  a  limited  area  which  passed  through 
the  successive  stages  in  the  evolution  of  society  on  the  frontier 
should  be  typical  of  what  was  repeated  over  and  over  again  in 
the  conquest  and  settlement  of  the  continent.  And,  in  the 
same  way,  if  a  study  be  made  of  an  individual  who  lived  through 
and  participated  in,  or  at  least  witnessed,  the  various  steps 
vivid  illustrations  of  the  significant  features  of  the  westward 
movement  may  be  found.  In  the  second  and  third  quarters 
of  the  nineteenth  century  that  part  of  the  upper  Mississippi 
Valley  which  became  Minnesota  passed  through  the  evolution 
of  society  from  frontier  to  statehood,  and  the  most  prominent 
man  in  that  region  during  the  period  was  Henry  Hastings 
Sibley,  fur  trader,  first  delegate  in  Congress  from  Minnesota 
Territory,  and  first  governor  of  the  State  of  Minnesota.  This 
region  and  this  individual  have  been  selected,  therefore,  as 
types  in  this  study  of  frontier  transition. 

The  Sibley  family  furnishes  a  good  illustration  of  the  migra- 
tion of  the  New  England  element  of  our  population.  The  story 
of  this  family  takes  its  beginning  in  Old  England,  going  back 
through  the  centuries  almost,  if  not  quite,  to  the  time  of  the 
Norman  Conquest.  After  picking  up  the  threads  of  the  story 
in  England,  certain  members  of  the  family  will  be  followed 
across  the  Atlantic  to  the  shores  of  New  England,  to  what 
may  be  called  the  first  American  West.  From  New  England 
the  story  will  follow  along  the  trail  that  leads  to  the  first  real 
American  West,  the  region  beyond  the  Alleghanies,  first  to 
Marietta  and  then  to  Detroit.  In  particular,  this  study  will 
follow  the  fortunes  of  a  younger  son  of  the  Sibley  family  in 
Detroit  from  his  boyhood  home  to  the  Indian  country  of  the 
upper   Mississippi,   where   he   lived   through   the   successive 

in 


o 


4846.U 


IV  PREFACE 

changes  from  fur  traders'  frontier,  through  territorial  days  and 
into  statehood.  Three  different  times  did  representatives  of 
this  family  migrate  to  a  newer  American  West  and  live  through 
this  evolution  of  society.  Constant  attention  has  been  given 
in  this  study  to  the  phases  of  development  that  were  typical 
of  what  has  taken  place  in  different  parts  of  the  country.  The 
problems  confronting  the  settlers  in  new  areas  were  more  or 
less  similar,  and  this  makes  possible  a  type  study  of  this  nature. 
The  story  of  this  family  also  illustrates  the  fact  that,  as  a 
general  rule,  each  area  was  settled  by  people  who  were  born  in 
an  adjoining  region,  or  an  older  region,  to  the  East.  Some- 
times certain  individuals  or  certain  classes  drifted  along  with 
the  frontier,  but  the  more  ambitious  pioneers  went  farther 
west  to  get  a  start  in  life,  Settled  down,  and  waited  for  the  later 
waves  of  civilization  to  overtake  them.  It  is  a  very  significant 
fact  in  the  history  of  the  West  that  one  could  go  as  a  young  man 
into  a  new  region,  as  Sibley  went  into  the  upper  Mississippi 
country,  and  live  to  see  that  region  a  settled  area  with  a  civiliza- 
tion and  conveniences  equal  to  those  found  in  the  older  com- 
munities in  the  East,  and  it  is  still  more  striking  that  this 
change  should  have  taken  place  in  time  for  that  same  individual 
to  be  able  to  enjoy  for  many  years  the  conveniences  of  city 
life.  By  centering  our  attention  on  a  given  region  during  the 
lifetime  of  a  single  individual  it  is  possible,  therefore,  to  see  the 
various  changes  that  came  in  rapid  succession  in  the  history 
of  the  West. 

The  material  upon  which  this  study  is  based  is  indicated  in 
the  chapter  on  bibliography,  but  special  mention  might  be  made 
of  the  Sibley  and  Ramsey  Papers.  This  material  consists  of 
several  thousand  papers,  chiefly  correspondence,  of  the  two  men 
most  prominent  in  the  making  of  Minnesota.  Sibley  carefully 
preserved  letters  and  papers  from  the  time  he  first  came  to 
Minnesota  and,  after  his  death,  most  of  these  were  turned  over 
to  the  Minnesota  Historical  Society.  They  contain  much 
valuable  material  on  the  early  history  of  Minnesota  and  cover 
the  period  from  1 830  to  1 890.    Since  most  of  the  correspondence 


PREFACE 


mentioned  in  this  study  has  been  taken  from  the  Sibley  Papers 
it  will  be  assumed,  unless  direct  reference  is  given  to  the 
contrary,  that  the  material  in  question  is  found  in  them.  The 
Ramsey  Papers,  while  not  so  extensive  as  the  Sibley  Papers, 
also  contain  much  valuable  material,  particularly  on  Indian  re- 
lations and  early  politics.  Many  of  Sibley's  letters  are  found 
here.  The  Minnesota  Historical  Society  has  a  very  valuable 
collection  of  newspapers  published  in  Minnesota,  dating  from 
the  very  year  that  the  territory  was  organized,  and  these  files 
have  been  used  in  gathering  material  for  this  study. 

Since  this  work  has  grown  out  of  the  author's  study  of  the 
history  of  the  West,  several  friends  have  aided  either  directly 
or  indirectly  in  its  preparation.  The  author's  interest  in  the 
history  of  the  West  was  first  aroused  in  the  classes  and  seminary 
of  Professor  Frederick  J.  Turner,  at  the  University  of  Wisconsin 
in  1909  and  1910,  and  the  work  was  later  continued  under 
Professor  Solon  J.  Buck,  at  the  University  of  Minnesota. 
Especially  the  author  desires  to  acknowledge  his  deep  indebt- 
edness to  Professor  Buck  for  the  encouragement  and  valuable 
assistance  which  he  freely  gave  at  all  stages  in  the  preparation 
and  publication  of  this  work.  Every  chapter  in  the  original 
dissertation  was  gone  over  with  Professor  Buck,  and  his  criti- 
cisms and  suggestions  helped  the  author  to  avoid  many  errors 
which  otherwise  would  have  appeared.  It  is  not  assumed, 
however,  that  even  so  mistakes  did  not  creep  in,  and  for  all  of 
these  the  author  assumes  full  responsibility.  Acknowledg- 
ments are  also  due  and  are  gladly  given  to  the  several 
assistants  in  the  Minnesota  Historical  Society,  and  especially 
to  those  in  the  manuscript  department,  for  the  help  which  they 
gave.  Entire  justice  in  making  acknowledgments  would  not 
be  done  without  a  statement  as  to  the  interest  manifested  in 
the  author's  work  by  Professor  August  C.  Krey,  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Minnesota,  whose  encouragement  helped  the  author 
over  many  hard  places. 

W.  P.  S. 

University  of  Louisville 
January  21,  1922 


CONTENTS 

Chapter    i.    A  Type  of  the  New  England  Element  in  the  West I 

Chapter    2.    The  Fur  Traders'  Frontier 1 1 

Chapter    3.    The  Pioneer  Days  on  the  Upper  Mississippi 27 

Chapter    4.    The  Making  of  a  New  Territory 25 

Chapter    5.    Territorial  Politics,  1 848-1 852 61 

Chapter    6.    The  Needs  of  a  New  Territory 79 

Chapter    7.    The  Indian  Problem  on  the  Frontier 91 

Chapter    8.    Territorial  Growth  and  the  Organization  of  a  State 120 

Chapter    9.    The  Advent  of  the  Railroad  to  Minnesota 132 

Chapter  10.    The  Last  Stand  of  the  Sioux  Indians  in  Minnesota 146 

Chapter  II.    Pioneer  Dreams  Come  True 165 

Chapter  12.     Bibliography 174 

LIST  OF  MAPS 

Fur  trading  posts  along  the  upper  Mississippi,  1826 14 

Minnesota  Territory,  1 849 69 

Minnesota  Territory,  1855 122 


/ 


CHAPTER  I 

A  TYPE  OF  THE  NEW  ENGLAND  ELEMENT  IN 

THE  WEST 

Soon  after  the  close  of  the  American  Revolution  New  Eng- 
landers  began  the  great  migration  across  the  Appalachian 
Mountains.  Even  before  this  time  the  expanding  population 
had  advanced  northward  into  New  York  and  Pennsylvania.1 
All  of  these  migrations  were  brought  about  from  much  the 
same  causes  and  were  carried  out  in  much  the  same  way.  At 
about  the  time  that  the  members  of  the  Convention  of  1787 
met  and  drew  up  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  "in 
order  to  form  a  more  perfect  union"  the  foundation  was  being 
laid  for  a  new  state  west  of  Pennsylvania,  and  this  beginning 
was  made  by  New  Englanders.  Each  generation  furnished 
pioneers  for  the  settlement  of  another  area  farther  west.  From 
New  York  and  Pennsylvania,  as  well  as  from  New  England 
itself,  the  New  England  element  passed  into  Ohio,  northern 
Indiana  and  Illinois,  where  it  met  the  stream  of  population 
coming  across  the  Ohio  river  from  the  southward.  In  these 
states  institutions  were  modified  but  not  controlled  by  the 
New  England  influence.  In  the  next  tier  of  states  settled  and 
admitted  into  the  Union,  however,  the  local  institutions  were 
suggestive  of  New  England.  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Iowa,  and 
Minnesota  were  settled  quite  largely  by  New  Englanders  or 
by  their  descendants  who  had  lived  for  a  time  at  some  settle- 
ment along  the  path  of  the  westward  march  of  population. 
The  New  England  influence  was  strong  enough  in  these  states 
to  control  permanently  the  form  of  local  institutions  in  spite 
of  migration  from  other  states  and  an  unusually  large  number 
of  foreign  immigrants.     It  is  possible,  therefore,  to  select  a 

JLois  Kimball  Mathews,  The  Expansion  of  New  England,  Chapter  VI. 


2  A  iTKAySJTJOK:  oi  A'TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

typical  New  England  family  and  follow  its  members  into  the 
West,  thus  illustrating  how  the  migration  took  place  and  how 
institutions  were  transplanted. 

Henry  Hastings  Sibley,  a  pioneer  on  the  Minnesota  frontier, 
came  from  pure  New  England  stock  and  may  therefore  be 
taken  as  a  type  of  the  New  England  element.  The  family 
history,  on  his  father's  side,  goes  back  without  a  break  in  the 
story  to  the  great  Puritan  emigration  to  Massachusetts,  and 
careful  genealogists  have  claimed  to  be  able  to  trace  it  back  to 
the  time  of  the  Norman  Conquest.  The  name  appears,  with 
several  different  spellings,  in  many  local  records  in  England. 
In  the  time  of  Edward  I  the  Sibleys  were  listed  as  owners  of 
land  in  Kent,  Oxford,  and  Suffolk.  In  the  sixteenth  century 
one  John  Sibley  was  mayor  of  St.  Albans,  and  it  is  probably 
from  him  that  the  American  Sibleys  were  descended.  In  the 
long  struggle  between  king  and  parliament  the  Sibleys  often 
divided,  as  many  old  English  families  did,  some  members 
favoring  one  side  and  other  members  the  other.  The  second 
quarter  of  the  seventeenth  century  was  the  time  of  the  great 
Puritan  emigration  to  America,  and  it  was  this  movement  that 
brought  the  Sibleys  to  the  new  world.  The  first  individuals 
of  the  family  to  come  to  America  seem  to  have  been  two  broth- 
ers, John  and  Richard,  who  came  to  Salem,  possibly  in  1629, 
certainly  before  1 634.2 

John  Sibley,  the  ancestor  of  the  branch  of  the  family  under 
consideration,  took  the  freeman's  oath  on  September  3,  1634, 
and  his  name  is  to  be  found  in  the  list  of  the  members  of  the 
First  Church  of  Salem.  He  was  selectman  at  Salem  in  1636 
and  held  a  similar  office  at  Manchester  in  1645  and  again  in 
1658.  He  died  in  1661.  Joseph  Sibley,  the  third  son  of  John 
Sibley,  was  born  in  1655.  He  was  a  landowner  and  husband- 
man and  engaged  to  some  extent  in  fishing,  but  this  is  about 
all  that  is  known  about  him.  He  bought  land  in  Sutton, 
Massachusetts,  and  three  of  his  six  sons  were  among  the 

2  William  A.  Benedict  and  Hiram  A.  Tracy,  History  of  the  Town  of  Sutton,  718.  Also  West, 
The  Ancestry,  Life  and  Times  of  Henry  Hastings  Sibley,  1-17. 


NEW  ENGLAND  ELEMENT  IN  THE  WEST  3 

founders  of  this  new  town  of  Sutton.  His  other  three  sons 
later  settled  in  the  same  place,  and  already  the  westward  migra- 
tion of  the  family  had  begun. 

The  settlement  of  Sutton  was  typical  of  the  New  England 
method  of  founding  new  towns.  By  the  beginning  of  Queen 
Anne's  War  most  of  eastern  Massachusetts  had  been  settled 
and  much  land  had  been  taken  up  in  the  Connecticut  valley, 
while  between  these  places  there  were  only  a  few  isolated  areas 
of  settlement.  Because  the  land  was  not  so  good  in  this  section 
and  also  because  it  was  more  exposed  to  Indians  raids  it  had 
been  passed  over  by  the  earlier  settlers.  People  began  to  come 
into  the  region  after  the  close  of  hostilities  in  17 13  and  it  was 
here  that  the  new  town  of  Sutton  was  founded.3  The  land  was 
first  purchased  from  some  Nipmug  Indians  in  1704  by  the 
"Proprietors  of  Sutton"  and  was  described  as  "a  tract  of  waste 
lands  eight  miles  square,  lying  between  the  Towns  of  Mendon, 
Worcester,  New  Oxford,  Sherburne  and  Marlborough,  embrac- 
ing within  its  limits  an  Indian  reservation  of  four  miles  square 
called  Hassanimisco."  The  proprietors  then  applied  to  the 
Governor  and  General  Assembly  for  the  confirmation  of  the 
grant  and  for  permission  to  establish  the  town.  The  petition 
was  granted  in  1704  on  condition  that  thirty  families  and  a 
minister  should  be  settled  within  seven  years  after  the  close  of 
the  war.  The  war  closed  in  1713,  but  it  was  not  until  1716 
that  the  first  families  settled  in  the  town.  By  the  end  of  17 17 
the  thirty  families  were  there  and  among  them  were  Joseph, 
Jonathan,  and  John  Sibley,  sons  of  the  above  mentioned 
Joseph  Sibley.  The  second  Joseph  Sibley  (born  1684)  was  the 
Sutton  ancestor  of  Henry  Hastings  Sibley.  For  three  genera- 
tions this  branch  of  the  family  was  identified  with  the  history 
of  Sutton,  taking  at  different  times  a  more  or  less  important 
part  in  the  political  and  social  life  of  the  town.  This  second 
Joseph  Sibley  had  a  son  named  Jonathan  (born  1718)  who  was 
the  father  of  Reuben  Sibley.     The  latter  was    the   father   of 

3  Lois  Kimball  Mathews,  The  Expansion  of  New  England,  78-79.    Also  map,  70. 


4  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

Solomon  Sibley,  the  representative  of  the  family  who  went  to 
Marietta  and  finally  to  Detroit.4 

Solomon  Sibley  was  born  in  Sutton,  Massachusetts,  October 
5, 1769.  He  received  a  good  elementary  education  and  studied 
law  under  William  Hastings,  of  Boston.  Feeling  the  influence 
of  the  movement  of  population  to  the  region  beyond  the 
mountains  he  set  his  face  westward  in  1795,  went  to  Marietta, 
and  henceforth  identified  himself  with  the  Old  Northwest. 
After  a  year  at  Marietta  he  moved  to  Cincinnati.  While 
practicing  law  here,  he  and  Judge  Burnet  made  a  trip  to  attend 
the  summer  session  of  court  at  Detroit,  swimming  streams  and 
sleeping  on  the  ground,  their  provisions  being  carried  on  a 
pack  horse.  Sibley  was  favorably  impressed  with  Detroit  and 
decided  to  make  it  his  future  home.  He  was  the  first  settler 
to  go  to  Detroit  after  the  evacuation  of  that  post  by  the 
British  in  1796  as  provided  in  Jay's  Treaty.5  He  engaged 
in  such  practice  of  the  law  as  existed  in  a  frontier  community, 
and  in  1799  was  elected  as  the  first  member  to  represent  Wayne 
county  in  the  first  territorial  legislature  of  the  Northwest 
Territory  which  met  at  Chillicothe.  In  1802  he  introduced 
into  the  territorial  legislature  the  bill  to  incorporate  Detroit. 
In  1806  he  was  mayor  of  Detroit  by  appointment  of  Governor 
Hull  and  in  18 15,  when  Detroit  regained  control  of  its  local 
affairs,  he  was  one  of  the  five  trustees  and  was  chosen  as  the 
first  president  of  the  town  board.  In  18 17  he  was  a  commis- 
sioner with  General  Lewis  Cass  to  treat  with  the  Ottawa, 
Chippewa,  and  Pottawatomie  Indians  for  the  cession  of  lands 
in  the  present  State  of  Michigan.6  From  1820  to  1823  he  was 
the  delegate  to  Congress  from  the  Territory  of  Michigan,  and 
in  1 821  he  became  a  trustee  of  the  University  of  Michigan,  a 
pioneer  "State"  University.  From  1824  to  1837,  the  close  of 
the  territorial  period,  he  was  chief  justice  of  the  supreme 

*  Benedict  and  Tracy,  History  of  Sutton,  9-12;  15;  18. 

5  Michigan  Pioneer  and  Historical  Collections,  6:488.  Also  Mathews,  The  Expansion  of 
New  England,  230. 

6  This  cession  embraced  lands  bounded  on  the  north  by  Grand  river,  on  the  west  by  Lake 
Michigan,  and  on  the  south  by  the  present  state  line,  except  a  small  parcel  of  land  in  the  south- 
west corner  of  the  State.    Michigan  Pioneer  and  Historical  Collections,  30:178;  18:693;  26:284. 


NEW  ENGLAND  ELEMENT  IN  THE  WEST  5 

court  of  Michigan  Territory.7  Such,  in  brief,  was  the  political 
life  of  the  father  of  Henry  Hastings  Sibley.  This  sketch  shows 
that  he  was  a  leader  in  his  community  and  played  an  important 
part  in  the  making  of  the  territory  and  State  of  Michigan  as 
was  the  case  with  his  son  in  a  newer  West,  the  region  which 
became  Minnesota.  There  are  some  interesting  parallels  in  the 
lives  of  father  and  son  in  these  two  frontier  regions.  Both 
served  in  territorial  legislatures,  both  were  delegate  in  Congress 
from  a  territory,  and  both  were  prominent  in  the  building  of  a 
State  University. 

In  1802  Solomon  Sibley  married  Sarah  Whipple  Sproat  at 
Marietta  and  took  his  bride  by  way  of  the  Ohio  river  to  Pitts- 
burg, thence  to  Lake  Erie,  and  then  by  boat  to  Detroit.  Sarah 
Whipple  Sproat  was  a  very  remarkable  woman  whose  family 
history  was  no  less  honorable  and  distinguished  than  that  of 
the  Sibleys.  Born  in  Providence,  Rhode  Island,  January  28, 
1782,  her  family  represents,  on  her  mother's  side,  another 
stream  of  influence  which  helped  make  Marietta,  for  that 
place  was  not  entirely  a  Massachusetts  settlement.  Colonel 
Ebenezer  Sproat,  her  father,  was  born  in  Middleborough, 
Massachusetts,  in  1752,  and  became  a  surveyor  by  profession. 
He  entered  the  Continental  army  as  a  captain  and  rose  to  the 
rank  of  colonel.  After  the  war  he  resided  for  a  time  at  Provi- 
dence, Rhode  Island,  where  he  met  and  later  married  Catherine 
Whipple,  the  daughter  of  Commodore  Abraham  Whipple.  In 
1786  when  Congress  ordered  the  first  surveys  of  land  west  of  the 
Ohio  river,  the  so-called  "seven  ranges,"  Colonel  Sproat  was 
one  of  the  surveyors  who  began  the  work  which  on  account  of 
Indian  hostilities  had  to  be  given  up  the  following  year.  When 
the  Ohio  Company  was  organized,  Sproat  again  came  west  as 
a  surveyor  of  lands  in  the  region  of  Marietta.  He  was  joined 
by  his  family  in  1789  and,  until  his  death  in  1805,  made  his 
home  in  the  new  territory.  As  sheriff  of  the  county,  he  opened 
the  first  court  ever  held  in  the  region  which  became  Ohio.8 

1  ibid,  35:448-449. 

8  Hildreth,  Biographical  and  Historical  Memoirs  of  the  Early  Pioneer  Settlers  of  Ohio,  230. 
Hereafter  this  book  will  be  referred  to  as  Pioneer  Settlers  of  Ohio. 


6  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

Commodore  Whipple  played  a  distinguished  part  in  the 
Revolutionary  War,  and  always  claimed  the  honor  of  having 
fired  the  first  gun  at  the  British  on  the  sea  under  the  authority 
of  Congress.  He  was  descended  from  John  Whipple,  one  of  the 
original  proprietors  of  Providence  Plantation  and  an  associate 
of  Roger  Williams.  Before  the  war,  Abraham  Whipple  com- 
manded a  vessel  engaged  in  the  West  India  trade.  Like  other 
traders  of  his  time  he  was  highly  incensed  at  the  efforts  of  Great 
Britian  to  put  an  end  to  smuggling,  and  tradition  has  it  that 
he  was  the  leader  of  the  party  of  Americans  that  burned  the 
British  ship  "Gaspee"  in  1772.9  After  an  honorable  career  in 
the  navy  during  the  Revolutionary  War,  he  resided  at  Provi- 
dence, Rhode  Island,  where  his  daughter  married  Colonel 
Sproat.  When  Marietta  was  founded,  Whipple  moved  there 
with  his  family.  In  1801  when  the  vessel  "St.  Clair"  was  built 
at  Marietta  to  take  a  cargo  of  products  to  the  West  Indies, 
Whipple  commanded  the  vessel  on  its  trip  down  the  Ohio  and 
Mississippi  to  New  Orleans,  and  thence  to  Havana.  He  disposed 
of  the  cargo  of  pork  and  flour,  returned  to  Philadelphia  with  a 
return  cargo,  sold  vessel  and  cargo,  and  returned  by  land  to 
Marietta.  This  was  the  first  rigged  vessel  ever  built  on  the 
Ohio,  and  Whipple  had  had  the  honor  of  "conducting  her  to 
the  ocean. " 

The  marriage  of  Solomon  Sibley  to  Sarah  Whipple  Sproat 
was,  therefore,  not  only  the  union  of  two  important  individuals, 
but  also  of  two  important  streams  of  New  England  influence 
which  poured  into  the  Northwest  during  this  period.    With 

9  At  the  time  of  the  Gaspee  Affair  the  identity  of  those  taking  part  in  it  was  kept  from  the 
British.  When  measures  had  advanced,  however,  to  an  open  break,  the  matter  was  no  longer 
kept  secret  and  a  British  captain,  hearing  of  Whipple's  part  in  it,  sent  him  the  following  com- 
munication: 

"You,  Abraham  Whipple,  on  the  17th  of  June  1772,  burned  his  majesty's  vessel, 
the  Gaspee,  and  I  will  hang  you  at  the  yard  arm. 

James  Wallace." 
To  this  note  Whipple  replied: 

"To  Sir  James  Wallace; 

Sir:  Always  catch  a  man  before  you  hang  him. 

Abraham  Whipple." 
Hildreth,  Pioneer  Settlers  of  Ohio,  159. 


NEW  ENGLAND  ELEMENT  IN  THE  WEST  7 

the  blood  of  such  pioneers  coursing  in  his  veins  it  is  little  wonder 
that  Henry  Hastings  Sibley  felt  the  call  of  the  West  and  pushed 
on  to  a  new  region  on  the  advancing  frontier. 

Henry  Hastings  Sibley  was  born  in  Detroit  February  20, 
181 1,  and  grew  up  in  a  frontier  environment.  The  region 
afforded  him  in  his  boyhood  a  good  training  in  field  sports  and 
wood  lore  which  was  destined  to  be  of  great  use  to  him  in  his 
own  pioneer  work.  He  was  educated  in  the  school  and  academy 
at  Detroit  and  had  two  years'  instruction  in  Greek  and  Latin 
under  an  Episcopal  clergyman.  His  parents  intended  that  he 
should  be  a  lawyer  and  he  spent  two  years  in  the  study  of  the 
law,  but  this  study  and  the  prospects  of  a  legal  career  in  a 
settled  community  did  not  appeal  to  the  young  man  who  was 
far  more  interested  in  a  wild  life  on  the  frontier.10 

With  the  consent  of  his  parents  young  Sibley  gave  up  his 
legal  studies  and  left  home  on  June  20,  1828,  going  first  to 
Sault  Ste.  Marie  where  he  secured  employment  in  the  sutler's 
store  of  John  Hulbert.  A  few  months  later,  he  was  in  charge 
of  the  business  affairs  of  Mrs.  Johnson,  the  mother-in-law  of 
Henry  L.  Schoolcraft,  the  Indian  agent  at  Sault  Ste.  Marie. 
Mrs.  Johnson's  husband  had  been  a  fur  trader  and  here  Sibley 
became  familiar  with  the  Indian  trade.  In  the  spring  of  1830 
Sibley  secured  employment  as  a  clerk  with  the  American  Fur 
Company,  at  Mackinac.11  As  his  work  with  the  fur  company 
was  not  to  begin  until  June,  Sibley  made  a  trip  to  Chicago  by 
way  of  Lake  Michigan.  In  his  autobiography  he  gave  the 
following  description  of  Chicago  at  that  time:  "I  found  on  the 
present  site  of  the  Queen  City  of  the  Lakes  a  stockade  con- 
structed for  defense  against  the  Indians,  but  abandoned,  and 
perhaps  a  half  dozen  dwellings  occupied  by  the  Beaubien  and 
other  families,  and  a  single  store  stocked  with  a  small  but 
varied  assortment  of  goods  and  provisions.    A  more  uninviting 

10  Sibley  was  admitted  to  the  bar  in  Minnesota  in  1858,  the  year  in  which  he  became 
Governor.    His  certificate  is  among  the  Sibley  Papers  (Misc). 

11  There  is  a  recommendation  of  Sibley  signed  by  the  President,  Cashier  and  Directors  of 
the  Bank  of  Michigan  to  the  American  Fur  Company  in  the  Sibley  Papers,  April  28,  1830. 


8  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

place  could  hardly  be  conceived  of.  Sand  here,  there,  every- 
where, with  an  occasional  shrub  to  relieve  the  monotony  of 
the  landscape.  Little  did  I  dream  that  I  would  live  to  see  on 
that  desolate  coast  a  magnificient  city  of  more  than  a  half- 
million  of  inhabitants,  almost  rivalling  metropolitan  New 
York  in  wealth  and  splendor/'12 

For  the  next  four  years  Sibley  held  this  position  as  clerk,13 
the  duties  of  which  were  very  exacting  during  the  busy  season 
of  the  year.  It  was  the  duty  of  the  clerks  to  inspect  and  list 
all  of  the  furs  brought  in  by  the  traders  who  at  that  time 
reported  each  spring  at  Machinac.  Settlement  was  then  made 
with  the  traders  on  the  basis  of  the  credit  extended  to  them  the 
previous  summer.  After  the  year's  business  was  thus  closed 
for  each  trader  on  the  books  of  the  fur  company  a  new  supply 
was  issued  and  a  new  account  opened  up.  The  invoice  was 
made  out  by  the  clerks  and  recorded  in  the  books  of  the  com- 
pany. After  all  the  traders  had  thus  been  fitted  out  and  had 
departed  for  the  Indian  country  the  furs  which  had  been 
brought  in  were  sorted  and  packed  for  shipment  to  New  York 
or  London.  From  May  or  June  until  August  the  life  of  a 
clerk  was  a  very  busy  one,  but  during  the  other  part  of  the 
year  there  was  time  for. recreation  and  study  if  one  were  so 
disposed  and  could  secure  the  necessary  books.  Sibley  seems 
to  have  utilized  his  time  quite  well  in  this  respect.  It  was  at 
this  time  that  Sibley  held  his  first  political  office,  that  of  justice 
of  the  peace,  the  commission  of  which  he  received  when  he 
was  twenty-one  years  old.  During  the  year  1833-34  Sibley 
was  supply  purchasing  agent  for  the  fur  company  and  travelled 
through  Ohio  and  Pennsylvania  buying  for  the  company  sup- 
plies used  in  the  Indian  trade. 

12  West,  Ancestry,  Life  and  Times  of  Henry  Hastings  Sibley,  48-49,  quoting  Sibley's  Auto- 
biography. This  Autobiography  was  never  published  and  is  not  now  among  the  Sibley  Papers. 
West  had  access  to  it  and  we  know  of  it  mainly  through  the  numerous  quotations  from  it  in  his 
Life  of  Sibley. 

13  The  American  Fur  Company  was  anxious  to  get  young  men  of  ability  and  promise  to 
enter  its  employ  as  clerics  and  it  advanced  those  who  made  good.  Sibley  is  a  type  of  young  man 
like  they  wanted,  and  his  later  business  career  is  an  illustration  of  how  they  would  advance  those 
who  proved  themselves  worthy. 


NEW  ENGLAND  ELEMENT  IN  THE  WEST  9 

In  1834  the  American  Fur  Company  was  re-organized, 
John  Jacob  Astor  retiring  from  the  Company  and  Ramsey 
Crooks  becoming  president.  At  this  time  Sibley  found  himself 
at  a  turning  point  in  his  career.  He  received  an  offer  of  a 
position  as  cashier  of  a  bank  in  Detroit  and  a  similar  offer  from 
a  bank  in  Huron,  and  had  almost  decided  to  accept  one  of  these 
offers  when  the  way  was  opened  for  him  to  become  a  partner  in 
the  fur  company.  Two  of  his  friends,  Hercules  L.  Dousman 
and  Joseph  Rolette,  Sr.,  had  been  engaged  in  the  fur  trade 
with  headquarters  at  Prairie  du  Chien,  Wisconsin.  They  now 
proposed  to  Sibley  that  the  three  of  them  make  an  agreement 
with  the  fur  company  by  which  the  company  would  furnish 
the  money  or  advance  the  goods  and  the  men  give  their  time 
in  extending  operations  on  the  upper  Mississippi  among  the 
Sioux.  It  was  to  be  Sibley's  duty  to  establish  headquarters 
on  the  St.  Peters  river  (now  called  the  Minnesota  river)  and 
have  charge  of  all  the  operations  in  that  region.  The  two 
friends  pictured  the  wild  life  on  the  frontier  in  such  glowing 
terms  that  Sibley  was  induced  to  decline  the  offers  as  cashier 
and  to  enter  the  fur  trade.  Sibley  left  Machinac  in  the  latter  part 
of  October,  1834,  and  started  for  the  upper  Mississippi  country. 
He  went  by  way  of  Green  Bay  and  the  Fox-Wisconsin  route 
and  five  days  later  arrived  at  Prairie  du  Chien.  Remaining 
here  only  a  few  days,  he  continued  his  journey  on  horseback 
"through  an  unexplored  and  uninhabited  wilderness"  for  a 
distance  of  three  hundred  miles  to  Mendota,  a  traders  settle- 
ment at  the  junction  of  the  St.  Peters  and  Mississippi  rivers. 

Two  years  after  his  arrival  at  Mendota,  Sibley  built  a  stone 
house  which  he  used  as  bachelor  quarters  until  his  marriage 
in  1843.  After  Sibley  moved  to  St.  Paul,  in  1862,  this  house 
fell  into  decay,  but  was  finally  restored  by  the  Daughters  of 
the  American  Revolution  and  is  known  today  as  the  "Sibley 
House."  It  has  been  refurnished  with  many  articles  used 
by  the  Sibleys  and  is  open  to  visitors.  Facts  connected  with 
his  residence  at  Mendota  furnish  a  good  illustration  of  the 
rapidity  with  which  the  westward  movement  passed  a  given 


10  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

place.  Concerning  his  residence  here  in  different  political 
jurisdictions,  Sibley,  on  a  later  occasion,  wrote:  "It  may  seem 
paradoxical,  but  it  is  nevertheless  true,  that  I  was  successively 
a  citizen  of  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Iowa  and  Minnesota  Terri- 
tories without  changing  my  residence  at  Mendota.  The  juris- 
diction of  the  first  named  terminated  when  Wisconsin  was 
organized  in  1836,  and  in  turn  Iowa  extended  her  sway  over  the 
west  of  the  Mississippi  in  1838.  When  the  latter  was  admitted 
as  a  State  with  very  much  diminished  area,  the  country  lying 
outside  of  the  State  boundaries  was  left  without  any  govern- 
ment until  the  establishment  of  the  Minnesota  territorial 
organization  placed  us  where  we  are."14  Visitors  to  the  "Sibley 
House' '  are  shown  the  room  where  the  Sibley  children  were 
born  in  the  different  political  jurisdictions.  In  the  short  space 
of  fourteen  years  four  territories  had  exercised  nominal  jurisdic- 
tion over  the  place,  and  from  1 846  to  1 848  the  region  west  of 
the  Mississippi  had  been  without  territorial  organization. 
Rapid  changes  of  this  sort  constituted  one  of  the  significant 
features  of  the  westward  movement. 

14  Sibley,  "Reminiscences  of  the  Early  Days  of  Minnesota,"  in  Minnesota  Historical 
Collections,  3:265. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  FUR  TRADERS*  FRONTIER 

As  was  true  in  most  other  sections,  it  was  the  fur  trade  that 
brought  the  upper  Mississippi  country  into  commercial  rela- 
tions with  the  civilized  world.  The  presence  of  Indians  on  the 
frontier  hastened  rather  than  retarded  the  settlement  of  new 
areas  by  white  men,  and  among  the  influences  making  for 
settlement  the  fur  trade  had  a  very  important  relative  position. 
Traders  as  well  as  explorers  and  missionaries  went  far  in  ad- 
vance of  the  other  waves  of  white  settlement,  learned  the 
resources  of  the  country,  and,  the  two  latter  classes  especially, 
made  them  known  to  the  on-coming  tide  of  immigrants.  In  a 
comparatively  short  time,  the  fur  traders'  frontier  would  pass  a 
given  region  and  the  knowledge  of  the  country  that  had  been 
acquired  enabled  the  pioneers  in  the  next  wave  of  settlement  to 
select  the  most  favorable  locations.  Not  that  the  fur  traders 
encouraged  the  other  classes  to  come  in;  on  the  contrary,  it 
was  to  the  interest  of  the  fur  trader  to  keep  the  other  classes 
of  whites  out  of  a  new  region.  The  westward  march  of  white 
settlers  could  not  be  stopped,  however,  and  it  was  recognized 
that  the  fur  traders'  frontier  was  a  comparatively  short  period 
in  the  development  of  a  region.  With  favorable  geographic 
conditions,  an  abundance  of  fur  bearing  animals,  and  the  pres- 
ence of  Indian  tribes  it  was  only  a  question  of  time  until  the 
fur  traders'  frontier  would  advance  along  the  upper  Mississippi 
and  its  tributaries  into  the  region  which  was  destined  to  be 
Minnesota.  Fur  traders  came  into  the  region  from  two  direc- 
tions; some  came  among  the  Chippewas  by  way  of  Lake  Supe- 
rior, and  some  came  among  the  Sioux  by  way  of  the  Mississippi. 
In  the  French  and  British  periods  of  the  fur  trade  in  this  region 
the  traders  for  the  most  part  came  in  by  way  of  Lake  Superior, 

ii 


12  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

although  as  early  as  1774  Peter  Pond,  a  Connecticut  Yankee, 
had  come  up  the  Mississippi  to  trade  with  the  Indians.  This 
study  deals  principally  with  the  American  fur  traders'  frontier 
which  came  up  the  Mississippi  for  it  was  this  movement  that 
brought  Henry  Hastings  Sibley  to  Minnesota.  Since  Sibley 
was  associated  with  the  American  Fur  Company  it  is  chiefly 
its  organization  and  activities  that  will  be  described. 

The  American  Fur  Company  was  chartered  under  the 
laws  of  New  York  in  1808  "for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on 
extensive  trade  with  the  native  Indian  inhabitants  of  America."1 
John  Jacob  Astor  was  the  founder  of  the  company  which  gradu- 
ally extended  its  field  of  operations  until  its  activities  spread  to 
the  Pacific  coast.  The  history  of  the  company  falls  into  two 
distinct  periods  with  the  date  1834  as  the  dividing  line. 

It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  the  British  controlled  the  fur 
trade  of  the  Northwest  until  after  the  War  of  18 12,  the  British 
garrison  leaving  Prairie  du  Chien  in  18 15. 2  In  the  following 
year  a  law  was  passed  by  Congress  which  prohibited  foreign 
traders  from  operating  within  the  territory  of  the  United 
States.3  This  marked  the  withdrawal  of  the  British  companies 
from  the  upper  Mississippi  country,  and  made  possible  the  re- 
markable success  of  the  American  Fur  Company.  Many  of 
the  traders  and  voyageurs  who  had  served  under  the  British 
fur  companies  were  taken  over  by  the  American  Fur  Company 
when  it  came  into  the  region  and  this  fact  greatly  facilitated 
the  gaining  of  a  practical  monopoly  of  the  Indian  trade  in 
Minnesota. 

Between  18 19,  the  date  of  the  founding  of  the  military  post 
which  was  soon  called  Fort  Snelling,  and  1834,  when  Sibley 
came  to  Minnesota,  several  trading  posts  were  established 
within  the  limits  of  what  later  became  Minnesota  Territory. 
The  principal  post  was  at  New  Hope  (also  called  St.  Peter  and 

1  New  York  Private  Laws,  1808,  p.  160. 

2  Stevens,  "Organization  of  the  British  Fur  Trade,"  in  Mississippi  Valley  Historical 
Review,  3:172-202. 

5  United  States,  Statutes  at  Large,  3:332. 


FUR  TRADERS     FRONTIER  1 3 

later  Mendota),  just  across  the  St.  Peters  river  from  Fort 
Snelling.  In  1826  Major  Taliaferro,  the  Indian  Agent  at  that 
point,  listed  seventeen  posts  in  the  upper  Mississippi  country.4 
Most  of  these  belonged  to  the  American  Fur  Company  and 
were  under  the  control  of  Joseph  Rolette,  Sr.,  whose  headquar- 
ters were  at  Prairie  du  Chien.  The  American  Fur  Company 
made  it  a  practice  to  form  partnerships  with  men  of  proved 
ability  as  fur  traders  by  which  the  company  furnished  the 
goods  to  the  trader  on  credit,  the  trader  gave  his  time,  and  the 
profits  were  divided  between  them.  It  was  in  this  sense  that 
the  American  Fur  Company  operated  in  Minnesota.  Credit 
was  thus  extended  to  Rolette  and  Dousman  on  the  books  of  the 
American  Fur  Company  simply  as  one  of  their  "outfits."  The 
accounts  were  closed  each  year  with  each  "outfit"  and  the 
balance  paid  to,  or  the  deficit  charged  against,  the  "outfit." 
The  division  of  the  country  that  was  assigned  to  Rolette 
extended  from  Dubuque's  lead  mines  up  the  Mississippi  to  a 
point  above  the  Falls  of  St.  Anthony  and  up  the  St.  Peters 
river  to  its  source.  Rolette  brought  his  goods  each  summer 
from  Mackinac,  by  way  of  the  Fox-Wisconsin  route,  to  Prairie 
du  Chien  where  the  goods  were  put  up  in  lots  for  each  trading 


4  These  posts  were  located  as  follows: 

Fort  Adams,  Lac  Qui  Parle Columbia  Fur  Co. 

Fort  Washington,  Lac  Travers  "  "     " 

Fort  Columbia,  Upper  Sand  Hills Cheyenne  American  Fur  Co. 

Fort  Biddle,  Crow  Island American  Fur  Co. 

Fort  Rush,  at  mouth  of  Chippewa M  "      " 

Fort  Union,  Traverse  des  Sioux Columbia  Fur  Co. 

Fort  Factory,  near  Fort  Snelling American  Fur  Co. 

Fort  Barbour,  Falls  of  St.  Croix Columbia  Fur  Co. 

Fort  Calhoun,  Leech  Lake American  Fur  Co. 

Fort  Bolivar,  Leaf  Lake Columbia  Fur  Co. 

Fort  Pike,  Red  Lake American  Fur  Co. 

Fort  Rice,  Devil's  Lake "  "      " 

Fort  Greene,  Big  Stone  Lake "         "*      " 

Fort  Southard,  Forks  of  Red  Cedar, "  "      " 

Fort  Lewis,  Little  Rapids  (St.  Peters  river) "  "      " 

Fort  Confederation,  second  forks  of  the  Des  Moines 

river Columbia  Fur  Co. 

Fort  Benton,  Sandy  Lake American  Fur  Co. 

Taliaferro  to  Alexis  Bailly,  April  2,  1826,  in  Sibley  Papers.  Also  Neill,  "Fort  Snelling  from  1819 
to  1 840,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  2:1 13-1 14.  For  location  of  these  posts  see  accom- 
panying map. 


H 


TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 


post  and  sent  up  the  Mississippi  in  charge  of  clerks  hired  for 
the  purpose.  These  clerks,  or  subordinate  traders,  had  charge 
of  the  various  posts  and  were  not  heard  from  until  the  following 
spring  when  they  returned  with  the  furs  and  peltries.    The 


/dtmqjtiu 

Fw  Trading  Potts  in  \%l% 


clerks  or  traders,  as  the  case  might  be,  gave  the  goods  out  to 
the  Indians  on  credit.  The  Indians  then  went  out  on  their 
hunts  and  returned  in  the  spring  for  settlement  with  the  trader. 
The  goods  were  sold  to  the  Indians  at  a  profit  of  100%  on  most 
articles,  and  even  more  on  lead,  powder,  knives,  and  similar 
articles,  where  the  profit  was  sometimes  300%  or  400%,  or 
even  higher.  In  the  spring,  the  Indians  settled  according  to 
their  success  on  the  chase,  some  paying  all  their  debts,  some 
only  part,  and  some  none  at  all.    Credits  were  extended  to  the 


TUR  TRADERS     FRONTIER  15 

Indians  in  proportion  to  their  ability  as  hunters  and  their 
honesty  in  making  settlement.5  Since  the  goods  were  given 
out  at  such  high  prices  the  trader  made  a  good  profit  even  if 
he  lost  a  considerable  amount  on  poor  debtors.  An  account 
was  kept,  however,  of  unpaid  balances  of  the  Indian  debts  and 
were  invariably  presented  when  Indian  treaties  were  made.6  . 

As  has  been  previously  related,  Sibley  came  to  the  upper 
Mississippi  country  in  1834  as  a  partner  in  the  American  Fur 
Company,  jointly  with  Rolette  and  Dousman.  The  country  that 
had  formerly  been  under  Rolette  was  divided,  and  Sibley  took 
charge  of  all  the  country  from  Lake  Pepin  to  the  Little  Falls 
of  the  Mississippi,  north  and  west  to  Pembina  in  the  Red  River 
valley;  also  all  the  valley  of  the  St.  Peters  river  and  westward 
to  the  sources  of  the  streams  which  flowed  into  the  Missouri 
river.  When  Sibley  made  his  first  tour  of  inspection  of  the 
posts  under  his  charge,  in  1835,  ne  f°und  the  following  men  in 
charge  of  the  most  important  posts:  Joseph  R.  Brown  at  Lac 
Traverse;  Joseph  Renville  at  Lac  Qui  Parle;  Louis  Provencalle 
at  Traverse  des  Sioux;  Jean  B.  Faribault  at  Little  Rapids; 
Joseph  Laframboise  at  Coteau  de  Prairie  at  Lake  of  the  Two 
Woods;  and  Alexander  Faribault  at  Cannon  river.  Other 
prominent  traders  in  the  region  at  the  time  were  Alexis  Bailly, 
Norman  W.  Kittson,  James  Wells,  Hazen  Mooers,  Philander 
Prescott,  and  Francois  Labathe.7  These  men  had  been  in  the 
region  for  some  years  and  some  of  them  were  destined  to  play 
a  large  part  in  the  making  of  Minnesota.  The  story  of  the 
lives  of  these  men  is,  to  a  very  large  extent,  the  history  of  this 
phase  of  the  fur  trade  before  Sibley  came  into  the  region. 

Jean  B.  Faribault  was  one  of  the  older  men  then  engaged  in 
the  Indian  trade  in  Minnesota.     He  was  born  in  1774  and 

5  Thomas  Forsyth  to  Lewis  Cass,  Secretary  of  War,  quoted  in  Chittenden,  American  Fur 
Trade,  3:926-930. 

8  "The  American  Fur  Company  ought  to  be  satisfied  with  the  Indians,  for  they  have  mon- 
opolized all  the  trade.  They  have  monopolized  the  whole  trade  on  the  frontiers  together  with 
the  Indian  annuities,  and  everything  an  Indian  has  to  sell,  yet  they  claim  a  large  amount  for 
debts  due  them  for  non-payment  of  credits  given  the  Indians  at  different  periods."  Forsyth  to 
Cass,  quoted  in  Chittenden,  American  Fur  Trade,  3:930.    See  also  Chapter  VI  below. 

7  Sibley,  "Reminiscences  of  the  Early  Days  in  Minnesota,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Col- 
lections, 3:245-248. 


1 6  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

entered  the  fur  trade  in  1798  with  the  Northwest  Fur  Company. 
He  first  came  to  the  St.  Peters  river  in  1804.  After  ten  years' 
experience  with  the  Northwest  Fur  Company  he  began  business 
for  himself  at  Prairie  du  Chien,  where  he  refused  to  take  part 
in  the  War  of  18 12  against  the  United  States.  After  the  war 
and  the  withdrawal  of  the  British  influence  from  the  North- 
west, he  secured  a  supply  of  goods  from  Joseph  Rolette,  of  the 
American  Fur  Company,  and,  henceforth,  was  one  of  their 
most  reliable  traders.8 

Alexis  Bailly,  with  whom  Sibley  made  the  trip  from  Prairie 
du  Chien  to  Mendota  in  1834,  had  been  engaged  in  the  fur 
trade  since  1822.  He  was  at  New  Hope  (now  Mendota)  during 
most  of  this  time  and  had  considerable  trouble  with  Major 
Taliaferro,  the  Indian  Agent,  over  the  use  of  liquor  in  the  Indian 
trade.9  In  1832  William  Aitkin  wrote  to  Sibley,  who  was  then 
a  clerk  at  Mackinac,  that  "Baillie's  people"  were  their  "worst 
neighbors"  at  Sandy  Lake  "after  the  Hudson  Bay  Company," 
and  that  Bailly  was  well  supplied  with  liquor  and  had  "a  pre- 
dominant sway  in  the  Indian  trade."10  Bailly  sold  out  his 
interests  at  Mendota  to  Sibley  in  1835. 

Joseph  R.  Brown,  a  man  whose  name  will  be  mentioned 
many  times  in  this  study,  because  he  too  was  one  of  the  makers 
of  Minnesota,  came  into  the  region  in  1819  as  a  drummer  boy 
with  the  detachment  of  soldiers  under  Colonel  Leavenworth 
to  build  the  military  post  that  was  soon  called  Fort  Snelling. 
Leaving  the  army  about  1825,  he  engaged  in  the  Indian  trade 
and  early  lumbering  enterprises  and  became  a  typical  product 
of  the  frontier.  "A  drummer  boy,  soldier,  Indian  trader, 
lumberman,  pioneer  speculator,  founder  of  cities,  legislator, 
politician,  editor,  inventor,  his  career,  though  it  hardly  com- 
menced till  half  his  life  had  been  wasted  in  the  obscure  soli- 
tudes of  this  far  Northwestern  wilderness,  has  been  a  very 
remarkable  and  characteristic  one,  not  so  much  for  what  he 

8  Sibley,  "Memoir  of  J.  B.  Faribault,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  3:168. 

9  Neill,  "Fort  Snelling  from  1819  to  1840,"  Minnesota  Historical  Collection,  2:112. 
10  Aitkin  to  Sibley,  February  10,  1832. 


FUR  TRADERS     FRONTIER  17 

has  achieved,  as  for  the  extraordinary  versatility  and  capacity 
which  he  has  displayed  in  every  new  situation."11 

Most  of  these  traders  married  Indian  women  and  exercised 
considerable  influence  with  the  tribes  into  which  they  married. 
They  were  men  who  had  personalities  strong  enough  to  enforce 
order  among  their  subordinates  and  among  the  Indians  with 
whom  they  traded,  in  a  country  where  laws  were  practically 
unknown.  Sibley  always  insisted  that  the  old  traders  were  a 
remarkable  class  of  men  who  were  much  better  than  they  were 
generally  reputed  to  be.  "Perhaps  no  body  of  men,"  he 
wrote,  "have  ever  been  so  misunderstood  and  misrepresented. — 
They  have  not  only  been  accused  of  all  the  evils  and  outrages 
that  were  the  accompaniments  of  extreme  frontier  life,  where 
law  is  unfelt  and  unknown,  but  they  have  been  charged  with 
fraud  and  villainy  of  every  conceivable  description.  With  too 
much  self-respect  to  contradict  charges  so  absurd  and  improb- 
able, and  with  an  undue  contempt  for  public  opinion,  it  is 
not  surprising  that  scarcely  a  voice  has  been  raised,  or  a  pen 
wielded  in  his  behalf.  There  is  an  unwritten  chapter  yet  to  be 
contributed  to  the  records  of  the  Northwest,  which  will  place 
the  Indian  trader  in  a  proper  light  before  the  country,  while  it 
will  not  seek  to  extenuate  either  his  defects  or  vices."12  Since 
the  traders  were  a  class  of  men  distinct  from  other  men  in  modes 
of  thought  and  life  they  cannot  justly  be  measured  by  the  same 
standards  which  apply  to  men  in  civilized  communities,  and 
particularly  to  men  of  a  later  day.  It  must  be  said  of  them  that 
while  they  generally  had  little  education13  they  possessed  re- 

11  Wheelock,  "Memoir  of  Joseph  R.  Brown,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  3:212. 

12  Sibley,  "Reminiscences  Historical  and  Personal,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections, 

i:378-37?. 

13  Sibley  related  the  following  story  regarding  the  methods  of  keeping  accounts  by  Louis 
Provencalle,  one  of  his  traders:  "He  kept  his  Indian  credit  books  by  hieroglyphics,  having  a 
peculiar  figure  for  each  article  of  merchandise,  understood  only  by  himself,  and  in  marking  down 
peltries  received  from  the  Indians,  he  drew  the  form  of  the  animal,  the  skin  of  which  was  to  be 
represented.  He  also  had  a  mode  of  indicating  the  names  of  his  Indian  debtors  on  his  account 
books  peculiar  to  himself."  Sibley  also  illustrated  the  power  of  a  trader  over  the  Indians  by 
relating  how  Provencalle  saved  his  goods  on  one  occasion  when  a  band  of  Sioux  threatened  to 
pillage  them.  Provencalle  "seized  a  fire  brand  and,  holding  it  within  a  few  inches  of  an  open 
keg  filled  with  gunpowder,  he  declared  his  determination  to  blow  them  and  himself  into  the  air 
if  they  seized  upon  a  single  article."  It  is  needless  to  say  that  he  was  not  further  annoyed. 
Sibley,  "Reminiscences  Historical  and  Personal,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  1 :38i-382. 


1 8  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

markable  energy  and  honesty.  "In  fact  the  whole  system  of 
Indian  trade  was  necessarily  based  upon  the  personal  integrity 
of  the  employer  and  the  employed.  Generally  speaking,  the 
former  resided  hundreds  or  even  thousands  of  miles  distant 
from  the  place  of  trade,  and  he  furnished  large  amounts  of 
merchandise  to  his  agent  or  clerk  for  which  he  held  no  security 
but  his  plighted  faith."14  The  characteristic  of  honesty  which 
the  old  traders  displayed  in  their  dealings  with  the  employer 
did  not  extend  to  rival  traders.  "There  was  a  state  of  perpetual 
warfare  existing  between  rival  establishments  in  the  Indian 
country,  except  in  case  of  sickness  or  scarcity  of  provisions, 
when  hostilities  ceased  for  a  time  and  the  opposite  party  came 
to  the  rescue  of  those  who  were  in  distress  and  afforded  every 
assistance  possible.  Such  exhibitions  of  qualities  so  contra- 
dictory were  characteristic  of  all  the  old  class  of  Indian  trad- 
ers."15 

The  voyageurs,  composed  entirely  of  French  Canadians 
who  were  engaged  in  Montreal  for  a  term  of  three  years  at 
regular  wages,  were  of  two  classes,  the  "Mangeurs  du  lard" 
or  pork-eaters,  during  their  first  three  years  in  the  West,  and 
the  "hivernants"  or  "winterers,"  composed  of  those  who  had 
passed  the  apprenticeship  stage.  The  labor  performed  by  these 
men  in  winter  was  excessively  severe.  They  frequently  carried 
packs  weighing  from  fifty  to  one  hundred  pounds  for  days  in 
succession  in  reaching  Indian  camps  with  goods  or  in  returning 
with  loads  of  furs.  The  most  disobedient  of  the  voyageurs,  on 
their  way  out  from  Montreal,  were  sent  to  points  on  the  Min- 
nesota river  where  the  traders  "had  a  reputation  for  sternness 
and  severity  towards  their  men,"16    Sometimes  the  voyageurs 

14  Some  of  the  traders  came  from  good  families  back  farther  east.  "Many  of  the  young  men 
who  sought  employment  with  the  fur  companies  were,  like  myself,  more  attracted  to  this  wild 
region  by  a  love  of  adventure  and  of  the  chase  than  by  any  prospect  of  pecuniary  gain.  There 
was  always  enough  of  danger,  also,  to  give  zest  to  extreme  frontier  life,  and  to  counteract  any 
tendency  to  ennui.  There  were  the  perils  of  prairie  fires  and  flood,  from  evil  disposed  savaged, 
and  those  inseparable  from  the  hunt  of  wild  beasts,  such  as  the  bear,  the  panther,  and  the  buf- 
falo."   Sibley,  "Memoir  of  H.  L.  Dousman,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collection,  3:195. 

15  Sibley,  "Reminiscences  Historical  and  Personal,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections 
1 :38c 

16  Sibley,  "Reminiscences  of  the  Early  Days  in  Minnesota"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Col- 
lections, 3 1245-247. 


FUR  TRADERS     FRONTIER  I9 

tried  to  escape  from  the  hardships  by  deserting,  but  in  such 
cases  they  were  hunted  down  and  brought  back. 

After  Sibley  came  to  Mendota,  the  traders  in  his  division 
reported  to  him  in  the  spring  and  received  their  goods  from 
him  instead  of  reporting  at  Prairie  du  Chien  as  had  formerly 
been  the  case.  The  furs  were  then  packed  and  shipped  down 
the  river  to  Prairie  du  Chien  and  on  to  Machinac.  In  other 
words,  Sibley  was  the  medium  of  communication  between  the 
individual  trader  and  the  fur  company  officials  in  the  east.  The 
amount  of  furs  received  from  the  Sioux  Outfit  (Sibley's  divi- 
sion at  Mendota)  was  enormous.17 

An  idea  of  the  profits  in  the  Indian  trade,  assuming  that  all 
the  Indian  debts  were  paid,  may  be  formed  from  the  table  on 
page  20. 18 


17  The  following  table,  taken  from  Sibley  Papers  (Misc.)  1835,  will  show  the  prices  of  furs 
as  well  as  the  amount  shipped  out: 

289,388  rats ^44,702 . 08 

2,588  kittens Sx3^ 

1,027  otters 5,135.00 

609  fishers 913 .  50 

2,330  minks 698 .  40 

462  martens 577 .  50 

2,01 1  coons 603 .  30 

100  bears 216.00 

24   bears  (coverings  for  packs) 24 . 00 

63  cubs 94 .  50 

34  wolves ,  . .  . .  17.00 

205  foxes 153-75 

1 2  badgers 2.25 

3,243  deer  skins 972 .  90 

225  beaver 900.00 

80  swan  skins 80 .  00 

3  rabbits .38 

3  wild  cats 1 .  00 

1,039  buffalo  robes 4,156.00 

Total 159,298.92 

18  Neill  "Fort  Snelling  from  1819  to  1840"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  2:131.    The 
column  showing  gain  %  has  been  added  to  the  table  by  the  present  writer. 


20 


TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 


St.  Louis  pri 
3  pt.  blanket 

ces 

Minnesota 
60  rat  skins 

prices 

#12.00 

Net  gain 
M-75 

Gain  % 
284% 

i}4  yd.  stroud 

2-75 

60   "       " 

12.00 

9.25 

33*>% 

i  N.  W.  Gun 

6.50 

100    "       " 

20.00 

13-5° 

200% 

i  lb.  lead 

.06 

2    «       « 

.40 

•34 

566% 

i  lb.  powder 

.28 

10   "       " 

2.00 

1.72 

614% 

i  tin  kettle 

2.50 

60    "       M 

12.00 

9.50 

38o% 

I  knife 

.20 

4    "       " 

.80 

.60 

3°°% 

i  looking  glass 

.04 

4    "       " 

.80 

.76 

1900% 

i  lb.  tobacco 

.12 

8    M       " 

1.60 

1.40 

1166% 

There  was  an  additional  profit  for  the  fur  company  in  the 
sale  of  the  furs.  In  1836,  Sibley's  buffalo  robes,  for  which  he 
paid  $4.00  each  in  trade  in  Minnesota,  were  sold  in  Michigan 
for  $6.00,  thus  making  an  additional  profit  of  50%,  less  trans- 
portation charges  from  Mendota  to  Machinac.19  The  rats, 
for  which  an  average  of  about  fifteen  cents  had  been  paid  in 
trade  in  Minnesota,  were  sold  for  twenty  cents,  a  profit  of 
33^2%>  less  transportation  charges.  The  profit  on  other  furs 
varied,  but  their  sale  usually  added  a  good  profit  to  the  com- 
pany's account.  On  the  other  hand,  the  furs  from  Minnesota 
sometimes  got  to  market  at  an  unfavorable  time  and  had  to  be 
sold  much  lower  than  those  prices,  sometimes  even  at  a  loss. 

The  fur  trade  in  Minnesota  was  in  its  most  flourishing 
condition  in  the  years  immediately  preceding  1837.  New  trad- 
ing posts  were  established  during  this  period,  particularly  in 
the  region  of  the  Red  River  of  the  North.20  Prices  of  furs  were 
higher  in  1836  than  they  had  been  for  years21  and  higher,  in 

19  Ramsey  Crooks  to  Sibley,  September  14,  1836. 

20  Taliaferro  to  Sibley,  July  22,  1836. 

21  "We  have  just  learned  the  result  of  the  London  sales.  All  the  Western  Outfit  skins  sold 
better  than  for  years  past  except  bears  which  I  fear  continue  to  sell  poorly.  .  .  .  Your  rats  are 
all  sold,  the  1st  brought  20  cents,  the  others  in  proportion.  They  will  not  improve."  R.  Crooks 
to  Sibley,  April  27,  1836. 


FUR  TRADERS     FRONTIER  21 

fact,  than  they  were  to  be  after  1837.  Buffalo  robes  sold  better 
than  other  furs  in  the  London  market,  while  otters,  beaver, 
and  rats  did  not  sell  as  well  in  the  European  market  as  they  did 
in  America.22 

There  was  no  metallic  money  used  in  the  fur  trade  at  this 
time,  the  trade  being  carried  on  entirely  by  barter.  The 
standard  of  value  during  the  early  period  of  the  fur  trade  was 
a  prime  beaver  called  a  "plus"  by  the  French.  In  the  later 
period  the  unit  of  value  in  Minnesota  was  the  muskrat.23 

About  the  only  thing  to  interfere  with  the  fur  trade  during 
this  period  was  the  relations  between  the  traders  and  the  Indian 
Agent,  Major  Taliaferro,  who  said  in  a  circular  issued  to  the 
traders  that  most  of  them  were  disregarding  the  provisions  in 
their  bonds  regarding  the  introduction  of  liquor  into  the  Indian 
country.  He  threatened  to  withhold  licences  from  the  traders 
"whose  creditors  may  hereafter  obtain  ardent  spirits  from  any 
source  and  introduce  the  same  within  the  limits  of  the  agency."24 
There  was  also  some  trouble  over  the  fact  that  the  Sioux  in  the 
Lac  qui  Parle  region  were  hostile  to  the  Chippewas,  contrary 
to  their  treaty.  Major  Taliaferro  threatened  to  suspend  all 
trade  with  the  Sioux  unless  they  ceased  their  hostility,  and  he 
directed  Joseph  Renville,  the  trader  at  that  point,  to  bring  to 
Fort  Snelling  all  Sioux  who  had  been  hostile  towards  the  Chip- 
pewas.25 The  traders  were  incensed  at  the  high-handed  methods 
of  the  Indian  Agent,  and  Sibley  lodged  a  complaint  and  pro- 
test with  the  department  at  Washington  against  Taliaferro's 
proposed  suspension  of  the  trade.  Ramsey  Crooks  interested 
himself  in  the  matter,  but  he  did  not  believe  that  Taliaferro 
would  actually  suspend  all  trade  with  the  Sioux.26    The  trade 

22  "Buffalo  robes  are  above  all  others  the  surest  of  selling  well  and  promptly.  They  have 
become  an  article  of  necessity."    Ramsey  Crooks  to  Sibley,  September  14,  1836. 

23  Eliason,  "Beginnings  of  Banking  in  Minnesota,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections, 
12:671. 

24  Circular  Notice,  August  1835,  m  Sibley  Papers. 

25  Taliaferro  to  Sibley,  Dec.  8,  1835. 

26  "All  your  complaints  against  Maj.  Taliaferro  are  doubtless  well  grounded,  ...  It  is 
quite  strange  to  me  that  he  should  annoy  you  as  he  does,  for  he  wrote  to  me  on  the  1st  of  last 
January  in  the  most  friendly  manner  complimenting  you  in  the  highest  terms  and  concluded 
by  saying  that  your  word  was  sufficient  to  him  for  all  your  outfits.  .  .  ."  Crooks  to  Sibley, 
Apr.  27,  1836. 


*v 


22  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

was  not  suspended  and  after  a  time  conditions  on  the  frontier 
assumed  their  normal  character. 

The  year  1837  marked  a  turning  point  in  the  history  of  the 
fur  trade  in  Minnesota.  Up  to  this  date  all  the  lands  within  the 
limits  of  the  future  Minnesota  Territory  belonged  to  the 
Indians,  except  the  military  reserve  at  Fort  Snelling.  In  1837, 
however,  a  delegation  of  Sioux  Chiefs  was  taken  to  Washington 
and  a  treaty  was  negotiated  for  the  cession  of  lands  east  of  the 
Mississippi.27  This  treaty  was  made  primarily  to  open  up  the 
pine  forests  of  the  St.  Croix  valley  to  the  lumberman,  the 
advance  guard  of  the  next  wave  of  civilization.  It  was,  of  itself, 
a  signal  that  the  fur  traders*  frontier  would  soon  be  passing 
farther  to  the  West.  As  has  been  shown,  the  fur  trade  in  Min- 
nesota reached  its  peak  of  production  about  this  time,  and  the 
year  1837  marks  the  beginning  of  the  decline. 

The  Indians  underwent  a  marked  transformation  when 
the  white  settlements,  in  their  gradual  but  steady  advance, 
made  necessary  the  negotiation  of  the  first  treaties  for  the 
cession  of  lands.  The  Indians  were  not  only  demoralized  by 
contact  with  the  whites,  but  they  ceased  to  rely  upon  their 
own  efforts  to  support  themselves  and  their  families  and  came 
to  depend  more  and  more  upon  the  annuities  from  the  govern- 
ment.28 This  was  the  second  great  transformation  that  came 
in  the  life-history  of  the  Indian  tribes.  Before  the  fur  traders' 
frontier  touched  a  given  tribe  of  Indians  the  red  men  supported 
themselves  by  agriculture  or  the  chase,  or  by  both;  with  the 
coming  of  the  traders  the  Indians  came  to  rely  more  and  more 
upon  the  supplies  which  were  brought  into  the  Indian  country 
by  the  traders  and  which  could  be  obtained  by  the  exchange 
of  furs;  with  the  negotiation  of  treaties  for  the  cession  of  land 

27  Neil],  "Fort  Snelling  from  1819  to  1840,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  2:132-133. 

28  "The  decay  of  the  Dakotas  in  our  midst  may  be  dated  from  the  time  of  their  treaty  in 
1837.  •  •  •  The  policy  which  has  been  pursued  to  secure  the  lands  of  the  Indian  and  then  to 
offer  him  no  inducement  to  improve  his  condition  has  been  the  bane  of  his  race.  Recourse  to 
liquor  and  other  evil  habits  are  but  the  natural  consequences  of  that  system  which  drives  him 
from  his  home,  interferes  with  his  habits  of  life,  and  regards  him  as  an  outcast  from  the  land  of 
his  fathers,  without  holding  out  to  him  any  promise  for  the  future."  Sibley,  "Reminiscences 
Historical  and  Personal,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  1  '.319* 


FUR  TRADERS     FRONTIER  2$ 

the  Indians  came  to  rely  upon  the  annuities  and  less  upon  the 
collections  of  furs.  This  fact,  together  with  the  growing 
scarcity  of  fur-bearing  animals  in  the  region,  brought  about  a 
decline  in  the  fur  trade.  This  does  not  mean  that  the  total 
amount  of  trade  carried  on  with  the  Indians  necessarily  de- 
creased. There  is  a  distinction  between  the  "fur  trade"  and  the 
"Indian  trade."  After  the  government  began  to  pay  annuities, 
the  Indians  could  pay  for  their  goods  partly  in  money,  and  thus 
the  fur  company  began  a  retail  business.  The  traders  were 
certain  to  be  on  hand  with  supplies  of  goods  at  the  time  of  the 
payment  of  annuities,  and  the  Indians  were  not  long  in  spending 
their  money.29  They  found  it  necessary  then  to  buy  goods  on 
credit  from  the  traders  until  the  next  payment  of  annuities 
from  the  government,  and  these  bills  were  not  always  paid  in 
full.  These  balances  were  carried  year  after  year  by  the 
traders  as  had  been  done  in  the  days  of  the  fur  trade.  It  must 
not  be  supposed  that  this  transformation  was  a  sudden  one; 
on  the  contrary,  it  was  very  gradual,  the  fur  trade  and  the 
retail  trade  being  carried  on  at  the  time  by  the  fur  company. 
In  the  years  after  1837,  however,  the  retail  trade  increased 
relatively.  With  the  appearance  of  white  men  other  than 
traders  the  retail  trade  naturally  extended  to  them.  When 
white  settlement  increased  still  more,  the  fur  company  under- 
took banking  operations,  making  loans,  cashing  drafts  brought 
into  the  region  by  prospective  settlers,  and  selling  exchange 
on  the  New  York  office  to  those  who  wished  to  send  money  out 
of  the  region.30  This  transformation  of  a  fur  trading  enter- 
prise into  a  general  mercantile  and  financial  establishment  is 
typical  of  the  evolution  of  institutions  in  a  frontier  community. 
Another  change  that  came  over  the  fur  company's  methods 
after  1837  was  the  change  of  route  of  shipping  goods  into  the 

29  In  1838  when  the  money  was  received  under  the  Treaty  of  1837,  nineteen  Indians 
(half-breeds)  deposited  $500  each  with  Sibley  as  trustee  and  traded  the  amount  out  in  merchan- 
dise. These  accounts  extended  over  a  period  of  years,  some  as  late  as  1847.  Sibley  kept  an 
accurate  account  with  each  Indian  and  allowed  him  6%  interest  on  balances  due  each  year. 
Sibley's  Cask  Book,  1838,  in  Library  of  Minnesota  Historical  Society. 

30  Patchin,  "The  Development  of  Banking  in  Minnesota,"  in  Minnesota  History  Bulletin, 
2:115-119. 


24  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

upper  Mississippi  country.  It  has  already  been  shown  that  in 
the  early  days  of  the  fur  trade  the  goods  were  sent  from  New 
York  to  Mackinac,  thence  via  Prairie  du  Chien  to  Mendota. 
In  1838  Sibley  was  purchasing  his  goods  for  the  Indian  trade 
through  P.  Chouteau  &  Company,  of  St.  Louis.31  At  that  time 
the  goods  were  still  sent  by  way  of  Albany  and  Buffalo,  but  by 
1840  the  goods  were  coming  by  way  of  Philadelphia  and  Pitts- 
burg, by  river  to  St.  Louis  and  thence  up  the  Mississippi  to 
Mendota.32  Sometimes,  even,  goods  were  shipped  from  New 
York  to  New  Orleans  and  thence  to  St.  Louis  and  to  Mendota. 
A  commission  of  5%  was  paid  Chouteau  &  Company  for 
handling  this  business  for  Sibley's  "Outfit"  of  the  American 
Fur  Company.  This  was  the  opening  wedge  for  the  St.  Louis 
company,  and  in  1841  they  began  to  secure  furs  from  Minne- 
sota, thus  challenging  the  monopoly  of  the  American  Fur 
Company.33 

Prices  of  furs  declined  after  1837,  partly  due  no  doubt  to 
the  financial  crisis  of  that  year,  and  the  American  Fur  Company 
found  itself  in  close  financial  straights  for  some  years.34  But 
for  the  fact  that  Sibley's  outfit  was  engaging  more  and  more  in 
retail  business  there  would  have  been  a  corresponding  change 
in  his  fortunes.    The  decline  in  the  price  of  otters  and  rats,  the 

31  "Invoice  of  Mdse.  purchased  in  N.  Y.  by  the  American  Fur  Company  and  forwarded 
via  Albany  &  Buffalo  to  Messrs.  Pratte  Chouteau  &  Co.,  St.  Louis,  to  be  by  them  forwarded  to 
Mr.  Henry  H.  Sibley,  Fort  Snelling,  for  Fort  Snelling  Outfit."  Invoice  Book,  i8j8,  in  Minnesota 
Historical  Society  Library. 

32  Invoice  Book,  1840. 

33  Several  letters  are  in  the  Sibley  Papers  regarding  this  change.  The  name  "American 
Fur  Company"  was  applied  to  Sibley's  business  for  many  years  after  the  change  was  made  to 
Chouteau  &  Co. 

34  "The  Leipsic  Fairs  have  a  controlling  influence  in  determining  the  value  of  Deerskins  & 
Shipping  Furs,  and  the  result  of  the  Fair  last  month  was  the  worst  that  has  been  known  for  years. 
The  prospects  are  most  discouraging  for  the  coming  sales,  which  can  not  possibly  be  good;  but 
we  cannot  tell  how  bad  they  will  be."    Crooks  to  Sibley,  June  28,  1841. 


FUR  TRADERS     FRONTIER  2$ 

chief  furs  gathered  at  this  time  in  Minnesota,  made  a  consider- 
able difference  in  the  total  output  of  furs  from  the  region.35 

A  comparison  of  the  amount  of  furs  collected  by  a  given 
trader  at  different  periods  may  throw  some  light  on  the  trend 
of  the  fur  trade,  particularly  if  he  was  in  about  the  same  region 
at  the  different  periods.  Jean  B.  Faribault's  account  for  furs 
collected  in  1835  was  $6,722.54;  in  1839  lt  was  $2>9°°;  m  ^43 
it  was  $2,009.66;  and  in  1847  it  was  only  $1,511.75.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  total  amount  of  credit  extended  to  him  did 
not  so  materially  change  during  the  period.  In  1835,  wnen 
there  was  no  money  in  circulation  among  the  Indians,  the 
amount  of  his  furs  was  approximately  the  amount  of  his  trade. 
In  1843  tne  total  CI*edit  extended  to  him  was  $3,931.22  and  in 
1847  it  was  $6,439.54,  as  compared  with  a  return  in  furs  of 
$2,009.66  and  $1,511.75  respectively  for  those  years.  This 
difference  represents  the  growth  in  retail  trade,  plus  balances 
being  carried  against  the  Indians.  In  1842-43  the  total  amount 
of  credit  extended  to  certain  men  in  the  Indian  trade  by 
Sibley's  outfit  was  $24,780.34  and  the  amount  of  furs  collected 
was  $13,215.01,  leaving  a  balance  of  $11,565.33  which  was 
paid  partly  in  cash  and  in  part  was  carried  as  an  unpaid  balance 
against  the  Indians,  to  be  brought  up  later  at  the  time  of  making 
treaties.  The  total  amount  of  business  as  shown  by  the  books 
of  the  fur  company  for  1842-43  was  $52,862.91  and  the  total 
amount,  as  far  as  it  is  possible  to  separate  the  accounts,  ex- 
tended to  fur  traders  was  $39,809.98    The  difference  between 

■  The  following  table  will  indicate  the  comparative  prices: 

1835  1843 

Otters $5.00 $3.75 

Foxes 75 62 

Martens i .  25 1.25 

Coons 30 37J4 

Minks 30 30 

Rats 15 08 

Fishers 1 .  50 1 .  50 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  price  of  coon  skins  was  higher  in  1843  then  in  1835  and  that 
martens,  minks,  and  fishers  were  the  same  price  as  in  1835.  Reference  to  the  table  given  above 
in  this  chapter  will  show,  however,  that  martens,  fishers,  and  coons  were  not  as  important  in  the 
fur  trade  in  Minnesota  as  rats  and  otters.  With  no  change  in  prices  except  otters  and  rats,  the 
total  output  in  1835  at  tne  prices  of  1843  would  have  been  $21,530.91  lower  than  it  was.  These 
figures  are  taken  from  Sibley's  Daily  Memorandum  Book,  Jan.  2,  1843. 


26  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

these  amounts,  $13,052.93,  represents  the  probable  amount  of 
retail  trade  for  that  year.  For  the  year  1846-47  the  total 
credit  business  was  $70,870.52  and  the  part  that  can  be  dis- 
tinguished as  extended  to  fur  traders  was  $51,184.38,  leaving 
balance  of  $19,686.14  as  the  probable  amount  of  retail  trade 
for  the  year.  The  largest  amount  of  credit  extended  to  any 
single  fur  trader  in  1846-47  was  $11,907.98  extended  to  N.  W. 
Kittson  who  was  stationed  in  the  region  of  the  Red  River  of 
the  North  and  was  thus  keeping  up,  in  a  way,  with  the  fur 
traders'  frontier  in  its  westward  march.36 

After  Sibley's  entrance  upon  his  public  career  in  1848,  his 
business  interests  at  Mendota  were  looked  after  by  his  brother, 
Fred  Sibley,  while  Dr.  C.  W.  Borup,  who  had  been  engaged  in 
the  trade  farther  up  the  Mississippi,  came  to  St.  Paul  and  took 
charge  of  the  business  there  belonging  to  Sibley's  concern. 
Borup  was  an  individual  who  looked  out  primarily  for  his  own 
interests,  in  characteristic  frontier  fashion,  and  tried  to  dis- 
credit Sibley  with  Chouteau  &  Company  in  order  to  supplant 
him  in  the  Indian  trade.  As  a  result  of  the  work  of  this  man, 
together  with  other  influences,  Sibley  found  himself  embar- 
rassed in  his  political  aspirations  because  of  his  connection 
with  the  fur  company  and,  as  a  result,  he  closed  up  his  connec- 
tion with  the  fur  trade  in  1853,  soon  after  his  retirement  from 
Congress.37 

36  These  figures  are  taken  from  the  books  of  the  fur  company  as  kept  by  Sibley,  which  are 
to  be  found  in  the  library  of  the  Minnesota  Historical  Society. 

37  See  Chapter  V,  below. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  PIONEER  DAYS  ON  THE  UPPER  MISSISSIPPI 

The  second  wave  of  civilization  to  come  up  the  Mississippi 
made  its  appearance  in  the  last  years  of  the  decade  of  the  thir- 
ties. The  Treaty  of  1837  with  the  Indians  was  both  a  result 
and  a  cause  of  this  movement  of  population.  The  extensive 
pine  forests  on  the  St.  Croix  and  the  upper  Mississippi  rivers 
were  sure  to  attract  lumbermen  in  time,  and  some  pine  logs 
were  cut  on  the  St.  Croix  even  before  the  treaty  was  negoti- 
ated. Joseph  R.  Brown,  the  pioneer  in  so  many  enterprises, 
seems  to  have  been  the  man  who  made  the  beginning  in  the 
industry  that  was  for  many  years  the  chief  source  of  wealth  in 
Minnesota  after  the  passing  of  the  fur  traders'  frontier.1  The 
year  1837,  which  was  the  turning  point  in  the  fur  trade,  marked 
the  real  beginning  of  lumbering  on  the  St.  Croix.  ___ 

I  Although  the  treaty  was  made  with  the  Indians,  the  lands 
ceded  to  the  federal  government  were  not  surveyed  and  sold 
for  many  years.  The  early  lumbermen,  as  well  as  the  pioneer 
farmers  and  even  town  promoters,  were,  therefore,  squatters 
upon  the  public  domain,  the  latter  two  classes  relying  upon 
their  land  claim  associations  to  secure  their  title  to  the  lands. 
A  small  technicality  like  not  having  a  legal  title  to  the  lands 
did  not  in  the  least  interfere  with  the  on-coming  wave  of  pioneer 
lumbermen.  The  timber  was  there  and  the  settlements  down 
the  river  needed  lumber;  this  was  sufficient  justification  for 
cutting  it.  Moreover,  these  pioneers  reasoned  that  what 
belonged  to  the  people  collectively  belonged  to  them  individu- 
ally as  "citizens  inheriting  an  interest  in  the  government,"  and 

1  Joseph  R.  Brown  "is  said  to  have  brought  down  the  first  raft  of  pine  lumber  that  ever 
descended  the  St.  Croix  river."  Sibley  "Reminiscences  Historical  and  Personal,"  in  Minnesota 
Historical  Collections,  1 1383-384.  Also  Durant,  "Lumbering  and  Steamboating  on  the  St.  Croix," 
in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  10:648.  By  1850  lumbering  rivaled  the  fur  trade  as  the 
dominant  interest  in  Minnesota.    Robinson,  Economic  History  of  Agriculture  in  Minnesota,  39. 

27 


28  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

that  they  were  rendering  valuable  service  to  the  government, 
as  squatters  always  reasoned,  by  creating  a  value  and  demand 
for  the  public  lands^} 

The  first  real  "outfit"  on  the  St.  Croix  was  established  in 
1837  by  John  Boyce  at  the  mouth  of  the  Kanabec  or  Snake 
river.3  In  the  same  year  Franklin  Steele  built  a  cabin  at  the 
Falls  of  the  St.  Croix,  and  four  other  parties  soon  followed  his 
example.  Saw  mills  were  set  up  at  St.  Croix  Falls  and  Marine 
Mills  in  1838,  at  Stillwater  in  1843,  at  Osceola,  Wisconsin,  in 
1845,  and  at  Lakeland  and  Areola  in  1848.  The  first  lumber 
placed  on  the  market  came  from  Marine  Mills  in  the  summer 
of  1839.  It  has  been  estimated  that  perhaps  one-third  of  the 
logs  cut  on  the  St.  Croix,  and  later  those  from  the  upper 
Mississippi,  were  rafted  down  the  river  to  Rock  Island  and 
Moline,  Illinois,  and  even  to  St.  Louis.  Much  of  the  lumber 
sawed  in  the  region  was  also  made  up  into  rafts  and  taken  to 
market  in  the  same  manner.4 

In  1837  Sibley,  Warren,  and  Aitkin  made  a  contract  with 
the  St.  Croix  and  Sauk  River  bands  of  Chippewas  by  which 
permission  was  secured  from  the  Indians  to  cut  timber  for  a 
period  of  ten  years  on  the  lands  adjacent  to  the  Snake  and  St. 
Croix  rivers,  to  a  distance  of  one  mile  on  the  east  side  and  three 
miles  on  the  west  side  of  the  rivers.  The  Indians  agreed  not  to 
molest  the  contractors  or  their  lumbermen,  and  also  agreed 
not  to  permit  anyone  else  to  cut  timber  in  the  region.  In 
return  for  this  concession,  the  contractors  agreed  to  furnish 
the  following  articles  to  the  Indians:  "500  lbs.  of  gun  powder, 
1250  lbs.  of  lead,  300  lbs.  of  tobacco,  2  bbls.  flour,  1  bbl.  pork, 
1  bbl.  salt,  Ji  bbl.  of  tallow,  45  bu.  corn,  5  pieces  of  Indian 


V^/'The  first  operators  in  the  pine  districts  of  Wisconsin  and  Minnesota  were  pioneers  who 
ventured  into  this  new  and  unexplored  country  for  the  purpose  of  cutting  timber  for  a  livelihood, 
not  with  the  spirit  of  speculation.  They  opened  the  country  for  settlement  and  cultivation, 
creating  a  value  for  the  public  domain.  ...  It  was  generally  conceded  to  be  a  benefit  to  the 
government."  Folsom,  "History  of  Lumbering  in  the  St.  Croix  Valley,"  in  Minnesota  Historical 
Collections ,  9:296.  i 

3  Durant,  ^Lumbering  and  Steamboating  on  the  St.  Croix,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Col- 
lections, 10:648. 

4  Stanchfield,  "History  of  Pioneer  Lumbering  on  the  Upper  Mississippi,"  in  Minnesota 
Historical  Collections ,  9:32$. 


PIONEER  DAYS  20. 

calico,  10  doz.  scalping  knives,  }4  gross  fire  steels,  i  gross 
Indian  awl  blades,  iooo  gun  flints,  i  m.  needles,  6  lbs.  cotton 
thread,  and  8  lbs.  of  vermillion."5 

Once  a  beginning  had  been  made,  other  lumbermen  came 
into  the  region.  In  addition  to  those  named  above,  Orange 
Walker,  John  McKusick,  Mowers,  Loomis,  Elam  Greely,  and 
the  Taylor  brothers  were  all  in  the  region  in  the  late  thirties 
or  early  forties.6  The  lumbering  industry  made  several  early 
Minnesota  towns,  chief  of  which  were  Stillwater,  on  the  St. 
Croix,  and  St.  Anthony,  on  the  Mississippi.  John  McKusick 
was  at  Stillwater  as  early  as  1844.  Franklin  Steele  staked  out  a 
claim  on  the  east  side  of  the  Mississippi  at  the  Falls  of  St. 
Anthony  as  early  as  1838,  but  the  first  saw  mill  did  not  begin 
operations  at  St.  Anthony  until  the  autumn  of  1848.  Lumber- 
men from  New  England  came  in  large  numbers  to  this  settle- 
ment and  gave  it  the  appearance  of  a  thriving  New  England 
village.7 

John  Catlin,  a  man  who  played  an  important  part  in  the 
organization  of  Minnesota  Territory,  as  will  be  described  later, 
wrote  to  Sibley,  then  the  territorial  delegate  in  Congress  from 
the  region  that  became  Minnesota,  wanting  a  government 
permit  for  a  mill  on  the  upper  Mississippi  within  that  portion 
ceded  to  the  United  States  by  the  Indians.  "The  United  States 
are  getting  nothing,"  he  wrote,  "for  the  lumber  cut  from  the 
lands  on  the  St.  Croix  &  Chippewa  rivers  and  I  see  no  good 
reason  why  the  same  privilege  of  cutting  timber  should  not  be 
extended  upon  the  upper  Mississippi,  particularly  as  the  lumber 
is  wanted  at  St.  Paul  and  St.  Anthony  Falls  and  the  country 
adjacent  for  permanent  improvements  which  would  so  much 
enhance  the  value  of  the  government  lands  already  in  the 
market."8 

6  This  contract,  dated  Mar.  13,  1837,  was  signed  by  forty  seven  Chippewa  Indians  and  by 
Sibley,  Warren,  and  Aitkin,  and  is  in  the  Sibley  Papers. 

6  Sibley,  "Reminiscences  Historical  and  Personal,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections, 
1:391. 

7  Stanchfield,  "History  of  Pioneer  Lumbering  on  the  Upper  Mississippi,"  in  Minnesota 
Historical  Collections ,  9:321. 

8  Catlin  to  Sibley,  Jan.  21 ,  1849. 


30  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

The  lumbering  industry  was  responsible  for  the  coming  of 
the  next  class  of  white  settlers,  the  pioneer  farmers.  In  the 
period  of  beginnings,  the  lumbermen  secured  their  provisions 
and  supplies,  for  men  and  horses  or  oxen,  from  the  settlements 
down  the  Mississippi.  It  was  not  long,  however,  until  some 
of  the  settlers  recognized  the  fact  that  Minnesota  might  have 
agricultural  possibilities  and  that  pioneer  farmers  could  have  a 
ready  market  for  their  surplus  products  among  the  lumber- 
men.9 Joseph  Haskell  and  James  S.  Norris,  so  Sibley  wrote, 
were  "the  first  farmers  who  made  Minnesota  their  home  and 
who  demonstrated  that  our  lands  are  equal  to  any  other  in  the 
West  for  the  production  of  cereals,  a  fact  which  was  denied 
not  only  by  men  not  residing  in  the  territory,  but  by  individu- 
als among  us."10  The  census  of  1840  stated  that  St.  Croix 
county,  Wisconsin  Territory,  which  included  the  region  between 
the  St.  Croix  and  the  Mississippi  together  with  a  part  of  the 
present  State  of  Wisconsin,  produced  8,014  bushels  of  potatoes 
and  606  bushels  of  corn.  Agriculture  as  an  independent  occu- 
pation did  not  yet  exist,  but  it  came  into  existence  between 
1840  and  1850.11  There  had  been  some  stock  raising  in  the 
Minnesota  region  among  the  fur  traders  in  the  decade  of  the 
thirties  when  Joseph  Renville,  at  Lac  Qui  Parle,  owned  "sheep 
by  the  hundreds  and  cattle  by  the  score/'12  As  the  decade  of 
the  thirties  was  the  heyday  of  the  fur  trade  in  Minnesota,  so  the 
decade  of  the  forties  found  lumbering  the  predominant  industry 
and  the  decade  of  the  fifties  marked  the  transition  to  agricul- 
ture. 

As  has  already  been  indicated,  the  early  settlers  in  Minne- 
sota were  dependent  upon  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi. 

9  Stanchfield,  "History  of  Pioneer  Lumbering  on  the  Upper  Mississippi,"  in  Minnesota 
Historical  Collections,  9:321. 

10  Sibley,  "Reminiscences  Historical  and  Personal,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections, 
1:391. 

11  Robinson,  Economic  History  of  Agriculture  in  Minnesota,  39. 

12  Sibley,  "Reminiscences  Historical  and  Personal,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections, 
1:391.  This  is  an  illustration  of  the  "ranch"  as  a  stage  in  the  history  of  the  West.  For  the 
different  stages  in  "the  procession  of  civilization"  across  the  continent  see  Turner,  The  Frontier 
in  American  History,  12.  For  a  criticism  of  this  "procession"  see  Alvord's  review  of  the  above 
named  book  in  Mississippi  Valley  Historical  Review,  March  1921,  pp.  406-7. 


PIONEER  DAYS  31 

The  first  steamboat  to  come  up  the  river  as  far  as  Fort  Snelling 
was  the  "Virginia"  which  arrived  at  that  point  on  May  10, 
1823,  thus  demonstrating  that  it  was  practicable  for  steamboats 
to  navigate  the  upper  Mississippi  as  far  as  the  St.  Peters  river.13 
There  was  no  regular  steamboat  line  established,  however, 
until  1847  when  a  company  was  formed,  Sibley  being  one  of 
the  company,  to  run  a  regular  line  of  packets  from  Galena  to 
Mendota.  Before  this  time  only  stray  boats  made  trips  to 
this  region  whenever  they  had  paying  cargoes.14  Since  Minne- 
sota was  so  far  North,  this  means  of  transportation  was,  of 
course,  available  only  between  April  and  November.15  Thisv 
was  a  serious  handicap  to  the  settlements  on  the  upper  Missis- 
sippi until  the  coming  of  the  railroad  in  the  decade  of  the  sixties. 
The  first  permanent  white  settlement  in  Minnesota  was 
not  a  part  of  this  movement  of  population  that  came  up  the 
Mississippi.  The  real  beginning  of  settlement  came  from  the 
Red  River  valley  where  Lord  Selkirk  had  attempted  to  establish 
a  colony  of  Scotch  highlanders.  In  1811  he  secured  a  grant 
from  the  Hudson  Bay  Company,  and  in  18 12  he  made  an 
attempt  at  settlement.  The  Northwest  Fur  Company  objected 
strenuously  to  this  proposed  colony  and,  when  Lord  Selkirk 
arrived  in  18 17  with  about  one  hundred  Swiss  colonists,  hos- 
tilities resulted  between  the  companies,  in  which  several  colon- 
ists were  massacred.  As  early  as  1820  the  Red  River  settlers 
sent  to  Prairie  du  Chien  for  seeds  and  thus  commenced  com- 
mercial relations  with  the  settlements  in  the  United  States. 
In  1 821  Alexis  Bailly  took  a  drove  of  cattle  to  the  Red  River 
valley  and  on  his  return  he  was  accompanied  by  five  families 
who  were  disappointed  at  the  prospects  in  the  Pembia  region 
across  the  line  in  Canada.  These  Swiss  families  were  allowed 
to  "squat"  upon  the  lands  belonging  to  the  Fort  Snelling 
military  reservation,  and  this  constituted  the  first  real  settle- 

13  Neill,  "Fort  Snelling  from  1819  to  1840,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  2:107. 

14  Williams,  History  of  St.  Paul  and  of  Ramsey  County,  173. 

15  "I  have  known  steamboats  to  reach  St.  Paul  as  late  as  the  18th  or  20th  of  November  and 
get  back  safely  to  Galena,  and  to  return  by  the  1st  of  April;  but  this  is  not  usually  the  case." 
Sibley  to  Senator  Foote,  published  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  1 :22. 


32  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

ment  in  Minnesota.  In  1823  other  families  came  from  the 
Red  River  valley,  and  by  1835  nearly  five  hundred  persons 
had  come.  Some  of  these  Swiss  families  remained  as  squatters 
on  the  military  reserve,  but  most  of  them  went  on  down  the 
Mississippi,  some  of  them  going  as  far  as  Vevay,  Indiana.16 

In  1838,  the  settlers  were  forced  off  the  reservation  lands 
west  of  the  Mississippi.  They  crossed  the  river  and  erected 
cabins  on  land  belonging  to  the  military  reserve  on  the  east 
side  of  the  Mississippi.  The  military  authorities  had  much 
trouble  with  whiskey  sellers  who  sold  liquor  to  the  soldiers  at 
Fort  Snelling  and  finally,  in  1839,  the  United  States  Marshal 
from  Wisconsin  Territory  was  ordered  to  remove  all  squatters 
from  the  lands  within  the  reserve  on  the  east  side  of  the  river. 
The  settlers  were  given  all  winter  to  prepare,  but  they  made 
no  move  to  vacate  the  lands.  On  May  6,  1840,  the  troops  from 
Fort  Snelling  were  called  out  and  the  settlers  were  driven  off 
and  their  cabins  destroyed.  The  squatters  went  no  farther 
than  was  necessary  and  settled  down  again  about  the  whiskey 
shanty  of  Peter  Parant,  thus  making  the  beginning  of  the 
settlement  called  "Pigs  Eye,"  later  "St.  Paul's  Landing,"  and 
finally  St.  Paul,  the  future  capital  of  Minnesota.17 

The  town  of  St.  Paul  was  laid  out  in  1847,  a  year  before 
the  land  was  brought  into  the  market.  A  Land  Claim  Associ- 
ation, an  institution  used  in  most  of  the  States  in  the  Middle 
West  during  this  period,  was  used  to  secure  title  to  the  settlers.18 

16  Neill,  "Fort  Snelling  from  1819  to  1840,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  2:127. 

17 Ibid,  142. 

18  "The  most  exciting  time  during  this  sale  (at  St.  Croix),  at  which  there  were  a  great  many 
people  present,  was  on  the  day  and  the  day  before  that  on  which  the  town-site  of  Saint  Paul  was 
offered  for  sale.  The  good  people  of  this  community  were  very  fearful  that  the  sale  would  be 
infested  with  a  hungry  set  of  speculators,  as  has  too  often  happened  at  land  sales  in  the  West, 
ready  with  their  gold  to  jump  at  every  chance  that  presented  itself,  and  bid  over  the  actual 
settler.  To  guard  against  this  emergency,  it  was  understood  beforehand  that  the  Hon.  H.  H. 
Sibley  should  bid  in  the  town-site  of  Saint  Paul  and  the  claims  of  such  Canadians  as  did  not 
understand  English  sufficiently  to  do  so  for  themselves;  and,  to  aid  and  assist  in  this  mission  a 
large  and  well-armed  force,  composed  principally  of  Canadian  Frenchmen,  were  present  at  the 
sale.  Their  fears,  however,  were  not  realized,  and  they  were  permitted  to  purchase  their  lands 
without  molestation."  From  "a  gentleman  who  was  present,"  quoted  in  Williams,  History  of 
St.  Paul  and  of  Ramsey  County,  1 84. 

Another  pioneer,  speaking  of  the  land  sales,  said:  "When  our  pieces  were  called,  we  bid 
them  in  and  everything  passed  off  in  good  shape;  but  I  assure  you,  gentlemen,  had  any  poor 


PIONEER  DAYS  33 

A  tract  of  ninety  acres  was  secured  at  the  first  land  sales,  which 
were  held  at  St.  Croix  in  1848,  and  the  town  plat  was  legally- 
entered  in  1849.19 

The  settlement  at  Pembina  in  the  Red  River  valley  also 
grew  out  of  the  settlement  of  the  Selkirk  colony.  When  that 
colony  was  first  established,  the  boundary  line  between  the 
United  States  and  the  British  possessions  was  not  definitely 
fixed  west  of  the  Lake  of  the  Woods.  In  18 18,  it  was  agreed 
that  the  49th  degree  of  latitude  should  be  the  boundary,  and 
from  1823  when  the  line  was  located  the  British  companies 
tried  to  keep  the  settlement  on  the  Canadian  side.20  The  British 
fur  companies  continued  to  draw  large  amounts  of  furs  from  the 
region  south  of  the  line  even  as  late  as  1849  when  Minnesota 
Territory  was  organized.21  A  settlement,  called  Pembina, 
grew  up  on  the  American  side  and  by  1849  had  a  population  of 
637,  mostly  half-breeds  connected  with  the  fur  trade. 

The  trade  which  grew  up  between  the  Red  River  settlements 
and  St.  Paul  was  carried  on  in  what  were  known  as  the  Red 
River  ox-carts,  rude  two-wheeled  vehicles  made  entirely  of 
wood.  By  1844  regular  trains  of  these  carts  began  to  reach  the 
little  settlement  of  St.  Paul,  bringing  buffalo  tongues,  buffalo 
robes,  furs,  and  pemmican,  and  taking  back  general  supplies. 

fellow  attempted  to  put  his  finger  in  our  pie,  he  would  have  heard  something  drop."  Larpen- 
tuer,  "Recollections  of  St.  Paul,  1 843-1 898,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  9:378. 

Sibley  described  his  part  in  the  land  sales  in  the  following  words:  "I  was  selected  by  the 
actual  settlers  to  bid  off  portions  of  the  land  for  them,  and,  when  the  hour  for  business  had 
arrived,  my  seat  was  invariably  surrounded  by  a  number  of  men  with  huge  bludgeons.  What 
was  meant  by  the  proceedings  I  could,  of  course,  only  surmise,  but  I  would  not  have  envied  the 
fate  of  the  individual  who  would  have  ventured  to  bid  against  me."  Sibley,  "Reminiscences  of 
the  Early  Days  in  Minnesota,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections ,  3:044. 

19  Williams,  History  of  St.  Paul  and  of  Ramsey  County,  171. 

20  In  a  letter  to  the  Chronicle  and  Register,  in  1 849,  John  Pope  stated  that  the  half-breeds 
"were  actually  forced  by  the  Hudson  Bay  Company  to  remove  to  the  British  side  of  the  line." 
Chronicle  and  Register,  Oct.  13,  1849. 

81  The  Hudson  Bay  Company  opposed  the  trading  with  the  Indians  by  the  settlers  at 
Pembina.  "Their  minions  do  not  stop  to  search  for  the  49th  parallel  when  on  the  track  of  some 
poor  trader  who  has  bought  of  an  Indian  a  fox  or  a  lynx  skin.  No  difference  to  them  whether  he 
is  on  British  or  American  ground.  Thanks  to  Mr.  Kittson,  the  'Yankee  Trader,'  as  the  Bay 
Company's  agents  call  him,  he  has  fully  established  his  claims  at  Pembina,  and  the  rich  packages 
of  furs  brought  in  this  season  abundantly  proves  that  he  is  fully  able  to  maintain  it.  We  are 
inclined  to  think  that  'John  Bull  caught  a  tartar'  when  he  undertook  to  bully  Kittson."  Min- 
nesota Register,  Aug.  II,  1849. 


34  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

The  route  usually  followed  by  these  carts  led  up  the  Red  River 
valley,  on  the  Dakota  side  of  the  river,  crossed  between  Lake 
Traverse  and  Big  Stone  Lake,  and  thence  by  way  of  Traverse 
des  Sioux  to  St.  Paul.  After  1844  a  more  direct  trail  was  cut 
through  farther  north,  and  this  route  was  followed  later  by  the 
Northern  Pacific  railroad.22 

Very  little  government  existed  before  1840  in  the  region 
which  became  Minnesota.  In  that  year,  the  peninsula  between 
the  St.  Croix  and  the  Mississippi  rivers  was  included  in  the 
newly  organized  county  of  St.  Croix,  Wisconsin  Territory.  In 
the  region  west  of  the  Mississippi,  Sibley  was  for  many  years 
the  only  representative  of  the  law,  having  received  a  commis- 
sion as  Justice  of  the  Peace  in  Clayton  county,  Iowa  Territory, 
in  1838.  "It  was  my  fortune,"  Sibley  wrote,  "to  be  the  first  to 
introduce  the  machinery  of  the  law  into  what  our  legal  brethern 
would  have  termed  a  benighted  region,  having  received  a  com- 
mission as  Justice  of  the  Peace  from  the  Governor  of  Iowa 
Territory,  for  the  county  of  Clayton.  This  county  was  an 
empire  in  itself  in  extent,  reaching  from  a  line  some  twenty 
miles  below  Prairie  du  Chien  on  the  west  of  the  'Father  of 
Waters'  to  Pembina,  and  across  to  the  Missouri  river.  As  I 
was  the  only  magistrate  in  this  region  and  the  county  seat  was 
some  three  hundred  miles  distant,  I  had  matters  pretty  much 
under  my  own  control,  there  being  little  chance  of  an  appeal 
from  my  decisions.  In  fact,  some  of  the  simple-minded  people 
around  me  firmly  believed  that  I  had  the  power  of  life  and 
death."23 

J2  Robinson,  Economic  History  of  Agriculture  in  Minnesota,  32. 

23  Sibley,  "Reminiscences  of  the  Early  Days  of  Minnesota,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Col- 
lections t  3:266.  Sibley  was  also  the  foreman  of  the  first  grand  jury  ever  empanelled  on  the  west 
side  of  the  Mississippi  in  what  is  now  the  State  of  Minnesota.  Sibley,  "Reminiscences  of  the 
Early  Days  of  Minnesota,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  3:267.  Sibley's  commissions  as 
Justice  of  the  Peace,  dated  Oct.  30, 1 838,  Jan.  1 9, 1 839,  and  July  1 7, 1 840  are  in  the  Sibley  Papers 
(Misc.). 


CHAPTER  IV 
THE  MAKING  OF  A  NEW  TERRITORY 

Since  most  of  our  territories  were  organized  in  much  the 
same  way  the  story  of  the  organization  of  Minnesota  may  be 
taken  as  a  type.  The  first  movement  in  Congress  for  the 
organization  of  a  territory  west  of  Wisconsin  was  during  the 
session  of  1846-47  while  the  enabling  act  for  Wisconsin  was 
under  consideration  when  a  bill  for  that  purpose  was  introduced 
in  the  House  by  Morgan  L.  Martin,  the  delegate  from  Wisconsin 
Territory.  The  Committee  on  Territories  reported  the  bill 
favorably,  but  with  the  name  "Itasca"  which  Stephen  A. 
Douglas,  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  was  said  to  favor. 
When  the  bill  came  up  in  the  House  other  names  were 
suggested.  Houston,  of  Delaware,  proposed  the  name 
"Washington";  Thompson  of  Mississippi,  suggested 
"Jackson";  Winthrop,  of  Massachusetts,  thought  "Chippewa" 
most  suitable.  Martin  moved  to  substitute  "Minnesota"  for 
"Itasca,"  as  had  originally  been  provided  in  his  bill,  and  this 
motion  prevailed.  The  bill  with  amendments  passed  the 
House,  but  was  not  passed  by  the  Senate.1 

Another  effort  was  made  during  the  next  session  of  Congress 
when  Douglas,  who  had  recently  been  elected  to  the  Senate, 
introduced  a  bill  into  the  Senate.  It  received  some  considera- 
tion by  that  body,  but  Congress  adjourned  on  August  14,  1848, 
without  passing  it.2  In  the  meantime,  on  May  29,  the  State  of 
Wisconsin  had  been  admitted  into  the  Union  with  its  western 
boundary  at  the  St.  Croix  river.  This  situation  apparently 
left  the  people  who  lived  between  the  St.  Croix  and  the  Missis- 
sippi without  political  organization.    They  had  been  included 

'The  chief  objections  to  the  bill  in  the  Senate  were  the  scanty  population,  the  fact  that  no 
lands  had  been  surveyed  and  sold  in  the  region,  and  the  fact  that  the  people  there  had  not  re- 
quested such  organization.    Congressional  Globe,  29  Cong.  2  Sess.  71,  441,  445. 

2  Congressional  Globe,  30  Cong.  1  Sess.  136,  656,  772. 

35 


36  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

in  the  Territory  of  Wisconsin,  whose  boundary  had  extended  to 
the  Mississippi,  but  they  were  not  included  in  the  new  State. 

While  the  bill  for  the  admission  of  Wisconsin  was  under 
consideration  this  matter  of  boundaries  had  called  forth  lively 
discussions,  both  in  Congress  and  in  the  then  Territory  of 
Wisconsin.  Several  lines  had  been  proposed  as  the  north- 
western boundary  of  the  new  State.  In  order  of  size  which 
they  would  give,  the  lines  most  seriously  considered  were  as 
follows:  (a)  a  line  drawn  due  west  from  Lake  Superior  to  the 
Mississippi  river;  (b)  the  Rum  river  line;  (c)  the  St.  Croix 
river  line;  (d)  a  line  drawn  from  Rush  river  of  Lake  Pepin  to 
Lake  Superior;  (e)  the  Menominee  river  and  the  Brule  river.3 
The  first  two  lines  above  mentioned  met  with  objections  largely 
because  of  the  size  they  would  give  Wisconsin  and  also  because 
there  would  not  be  enough  settled  territory  left  for  the  immedi- 
ate organization  of  Minnesota  Territory.  The  chief  difficulty, 
after  discarding  the  first  mentioned  line,  was  as  to  what  should 
be  done  with  the  St.  Croix  valley.  The  second  constitutional 
convention  of  Wisconsin  wanted  to  include  this  entire  region 
in  the  new  State  and  asked  that  the  boundary  be  placed  at  the 
Rum  River.  Most  of  the  people  living  in  the  St.  Croix  valley, 
together  with  the  few  who  lived  west  of  the  Mississippi,  where 
there  was  no  political  organization  at  all  after  the  admission 
of  Iowa,  favored  the  Rush  river  line  in  order  to  keep  the  entire 
St.  Croix  valley  under  the  same  jurisdiction  and  so  it  would  be 
in  the  proposed  new  territory  of  Minnesota.  Those  people 
objected  to  being  included  in  Wisconsin  largely  because  the 
geographical  situation  would  make  it  difficult  for  them  to  go  to 
Madison,  the  State  capital.  Distance  was  not  the  only  diffi- 
culty these  people  would  encounter,  however,  as  extensive 
pine  barrens  and  swamps  were  between  the  two  places.  These 
were  not  and  would  not  for  many  years  be  inhabited  or  have 
roads  constructed  through  them.     If,  on  the  other  hand,  the 

3  The  first  four  lines  are  mentioned  in  Sibley,  "Reminiscences  Historical  and  Personal," 
in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  I  =483.  The  fifth  line  was  proposed  by  Smith,  of  Illinois,  on 
May  9,  1848.    Congressional  Globe,  30  Cong.  1  Sess.  742. 


MAKING  OF  A  NEW  TERRITORY  37 

entire  St.  Croix  valley  was  left  out  of  Wisconsin  and  included 
in  Minnesota,  water  transportation  and  communication  to  the 
capital  of  the  new  territory,  Stillwater,  St.  Paul,  Mendota, 
or  where  ever  it  might  be  located,  would  be  comparatively 
easy.4  The  St.  Croix  line  had  been  proposed  by  Congress  and 
was  finally  accepted.  It  was  a  compromise  line  and  has  since 
remained  the  northwestern  boundary  of  Wisconsin.5 

The  admission  of  Wisconsin  and  the  failure  of  Congress  to 
pass  the  bill  for  the  organization  of  Minnesota  Territory  caused 
the  people  living  in  the  residuum  of  Wisconsin  Territory  to 
assert  what  they  considered  their  rights  to  political  organiza- 
tion and  to  representation  in  Congress.  The  first  meeting  for 
the  agitation  of  the  subject  was  held  in  St.  Paul  in  July,  1848, 
even  before  Congress  had  adjourned.  The  meeting  was  organ- 
ized by  the  election  of  a  chairman  and  secretary,  some  speeches 
were  made,  and  resolutions  were  adopted  in  favor  of  a  conven- 
tion of  the  people  of  the  region.6 

The  next  step  was  the  meeting  at  Stillwater  on  August  4, 
1848,  attended  by  citizens  from  that  place  and  by  some  from 
St.  Paul  and  the  region  west  of  the  Mississippi,  who  were  on 
their  way  to  the  land  sales  at  St.  Croix,  Wisconsin.  The 
meeting  seems  to  have  been  an  informal  gathering,  and  about 
all  that  was  done  was  to  issue  the  following  call  for  another 
meeting  at  Stillwater:  "We,  the  undersigned,  citizens  of  Min- 
nesota Territory,  impressed  with  the  necessity  of  taking  meas- 
ures to  secure  an  early  Territorial  organization,  and  that  these 
measures  should  be  taken  by  the  people  with  unity  of  action, 
respectfully  recommend  that  the  people  of  the  several  settle- 

4  Congressional  Globe,  30  Cong.  1  Sess.  742-743.  Sibley  favored  the  Rush  river  line  and 
was  active  in  defeating  the  Rum  river  line.  Sibley,  "Reminiscences  Historical  and  Personal," 
in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  1 :483.  A  memorial  signed  by  346  citizens,  including  Sibley, 
in  relation  to  the  Rum  river  line  is  in  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  No.  98,  30  Cong.  1  Sess. 

6  This  did  not,  however,  end  the  agitation  on  the  part  of  those  settlers  who  lived  east  of 
the  St.  Croix  river  and  who  were  included  in  Wisconsin.  Efforts  were  made  even  after  the  or- 
ganization of  Minnesota  Territory  to  have  the  boundary  changed  so  as  to  transfer  that  part  of 
the  St.  Croix  valley  to  Minnesota  Territory.  Minnesota  Pioneer,  Feb.  13, 1850.  Also  Minnesota 
Chronicle,  Feb.  15,  1850. 

8  Williams,  History  of  St.  Paul  and  of  Ramsey  County,  181.  Also  Sibley,  "Reminiscences 
Historical  and  Personal,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  1 :484. 


38  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

ments  in  the  proposed  Territory  appoint  delegates  to  meet 
in  convention  at  Stillwater,  on  the  26th  day  of  August  next, 
to  adopt  the  necessary  steps  for  that  purpose."7 

Pursuant  to  this  call,  there  assembled  at  the  appointed  time 
the  meeting  which  has  since  been  known  in  Minnesota  as  the 
"Stillwater  Convention/'8  Joseph  R.  Brown  took  the  leading 
part  in  the  work  of  the  convention.  Morton  S.  Wilkinson,  of 
Stillwater,  was  chosen  temporary  president  and  David  Lambert, 
of  St.  Paul,  temporary  secretary.  The  committee  on  perma- 
nent organization  reported  the  name  of  Samuel  Burkleo  for 
president,  Robert  Kennedy  and  Joshua  L.  Taylor  for  vice 
presidents,  and  William  Holcombe  and  David  Lambert  for 
secretaries.  A  committee  of  seven,  composed  of  Joseph  R. 
Brown,  Calvin  Leach,  H.  H.  Sibley,  Socrates  Nelson,  M.  S. 
Wilkinson,  Henry  Jackson,  and  H.  L.  Moss,  was  appointed  to 
draft  two  memorials,  one  to  Congress  and  one  to  President 
Polk,  asking  for  the  immediate  organization  of  Minnesota 
Territory.  These  memorials  recited  that  the  people  residing 
in  the  region  had  formerly  been  subject  to  the  laws  of  Iowa  and 
Wisconsin;  that  a  judicial  circuit  had  been  established  and 
courts  of  record  held  in  the  region  in  question;  that  there  was  a 
population  of  nearly  five  thousand  persons  who  were  engaged 
in  various  industrial  pursuits;  that  with  the  admission  of 
Wisconsin  they  were  "left  without  officers  to  administer  and 
execute  the  laws;  that,  having  once  enjoyed  the  rights  and 
privileges  of  citizens  of  a  Territory  of  the  United  States,  they 
were,  without  any  fault  or  blame  of  their  own,  virtually  dis- 
franchised. "  The  memorial  also  stated  that  there  were  no 
securities  of  life  and  property  "but  those  which  exist  by  mutual 
understanding";  that  all  proceedings  in  criminal  cases  had  been 
suspended,  and  all  the  operations  of  business  had  been  embar- 
rassed.   While  the  citizens  already  in  Minnesota  were  said  to 

7  It  is  important  to  notice  that  in  this  call  the  members  of  this  convention  spoke  of  them- 
selves as  "citizens  of  Minnesota  Territory."  This  call  was  signed  by  eighteen  citizens,  including 
Sibley. 

8  The  proceedings  of  this  meeting  are  published  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  i  '$$-$(>• 


MAKING  OF  A  NEW  TERRITORY  39 

be  law-abiding,9  nevertheless  the  situation  was  fraught  with 
evils  and  dangers.  "Its  continuance,"  they  said,  "will  tend  to 
prevent  the  immigration  of  the  more  valuable  class  of  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  while  it  will  open  the  door  of  invitation 
and  allurement  to  the  lawless  and  desperate.  It  will  foster 
dishonest  and  disorderly  principles  and  action  among  their 
citizens,  and,  if  suffered  to  exist  for  a  long  period,  will  bring 
ruin  upon  a  prosperous  and  fertile  region."  The  memorial  was 
signed  by  all  of  the  sixty-one  members. 

The  convention  also  approved  a  set  of  resolutions,  the  pre- 
amble of  which  made  it  perfectly  clear  that  the  inhabitants  of 
the  residuum  of  Wisconsin  Territory  believed  that  the  terri- 
torial government  ceased  with  the  admission  of  Wisconsin 
and  that  the  failure  of  Congress  to  organize  a  separate  terri- 
torial government  over  them,  which  they  could  explain  only  on 
the  ground  that  Congress  was  unacquainted  with  conditions, 
deprived  them  of  rights  and  privileges  which  were  guaranteed 
to  them  by  the  Ordinance  of  1787.  It  was  also  resolved  that  a 
"delegate"  should  be  appointed  "to  visit  Washington"  during 
the  next  session  of  Congress  "there  to  represent  the  interests  of 
the  proposed  Territory,  and  to  urge  the  immediate  organization 
of  the  same."  It  was  resolved  further  that  a  committee  of  six 
should  be  appointed,  three  members  residing  on  the  St.  Croix 
and  three  on  the  Mississippi,  to  "collect  information  relative 
to  the  amount  of  business  transacted  and  capital  employed 
within  the  limits  of  Minnesota  Territory,  and  forward  such 
information  as  soon  as  may  be,  to  our  Delegate."  Finally,  it 
was  resolved  "That  there  shall  be  a  committee  of  seven  ap- 
pointed by  the  president  of  this  Convention  to  act  as  a  central 
committee,  whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  correspond  with  our  Dele- 
gate at  Washington,  and  to  adopt  all  other  proper  means  to 
forward  the  objects  of  this  Convention." 

The  convention  then  proceeded  to  the  election  of  a  delegate. 
"On  the  first  ballot,"  reads  the  minutes,  "Mr.  H.  H.  Sibley, 

9  Minnesota  was  fortunate  in  this  respect  as  the  settlement  of  California  which  was  taking 
place  at  the  same  time  drew  the  most  lawless  characters  away  from  the  upper  Mississippi 
country. 


40  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

having  received  a  majority  of  all  the  votes  cast,  was,  on  motion 
of  Joseph  R.  Brown,  declared  unanimously  elected  by  the 
Convention."  Sibley  was  given  a  certificate  of  election  signed 
by  the  President,  the  Vice  President,  and  the  Secretaries  of  the 
convention.10 

It  is  evident  from  the  proceedings  of  this  convention  that 
these  people  regarded  themselves  as  being  without  territorial 
organization.  The  "delegate"  which  they  had  in  mind  was 
more  of  an  "agent"  than  a  delegate  in  the  sense  that  a  regular 
territory  was  entitled  to  be  represented  by  such  an  officer. 
Their  "delegate"  was  merely  "to  visit  Washington"  to  lobby  for 
the  organization  of  the  territory,  and  it  was  expected  that  he 
would  defray  his  own  expenses.11 

This  meeting  illustrates  a  significant  fact  in  the  history  of 
the  West.  These  people,  after  Congress  failed  to  establish 
any  political  jurisdiction  over  them,  might  have  had  any  kind 
of  government  of  their  own  making,  or  no  government  at  all. 
Men  on  the  frontier  under  these  circumstances  have  chosen 
to  have  an  orderly  and  properly  constituted  authority  over 
them.  When  such  did  not  exist,  they  themselves  maintained 
order.  It  is  remarkable  that  business  could  be  carried  on  at 
all  in  a  region  where  there  was  no  legal  provision  for  govern- 
ment, as  was  true  west  of  the  Mississippi  after  the  admission  of 
Iowa  and  was  true  in  the  residuum  of  Wisconsin  Territory  after 
the  admission  of  Wisconsin  and  before  the  organization  of 
Minnesota  Territory. 

Soon  after  the  Stillwater  Convention,  the  theory  of  having 
Minnesota  East12  still  called  Wisconsin  Territory  and  con- 
tinuing the  territorial  organization  there  came  into  existence. 
It  is  uncertain  as  to  who  originated  this  project,  but  on  August 
22,  1848,  Secretary  John  Catlin,  of  the  Territory  of  Wisconsin, 
wrote  from  Madison  to  William  Holcombe,  of  Stillwater,  pro- 

10  This  certificate  of  election  is  to  be  found  among  the  Sibley  Papers. 

11  Williams,  History  of  St.  Paul  and  of  Ramsey  County,  183.  Also  Moss,  "Early  Days  in 
Minnesota  Territory,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  8:78. 

12  Minnesota  East  is  an  expression  to  describe  that  part  of  Minnesota  which  lay  east  of  the 
Mississippi  and  had  been  in  Wisconsin  Territory. 


MAKING  OF  A  NEW  TERRITORY  4I 

posing  the  continuance  of  the  organization.13  Catlin  also  sent 
along  with  his  letter  a  copy  of  an  opinion  by  Secretary  of  State 
Buchanan  to  the  effect  that  the  laws  of  Wisconsin  Territory 
"were  still  in  force  over  the  territory  not  embraced  within  the 
limits  of  the  State."  "It  cannot  well  be  supposed/'  Buchanan 
wrote,  "that  Congress,  by  admitting  the  State  of  Wisconsin 
into  the  Union,  intended  to  deprive  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  beyond  its  limits,  of  the  protection  of  existing  laws; 
and  there  is  nothing  in  their  legislation  from  which  any  such 
inference  can  be  drawn.  The  difficult  question  is,  what  officers 
still  remain  to  carry  those  laws  into  execution.  It  is  clear  to  my 
mind  that  all  the  local  officers  residing  in  counties  without  the 
State  line,  such  as  judges  of  probate,  sheriffs,  justices  of  the 
peace,  and  constables,  may  exercise  their  appropriate  functions 
as  heretofore.  Whether  the  general  officers,  such  as  Governor, 
Secretary,  and  Judges,  appointed  for  the  whole  of  the  former 
Territory,  are  authorized  to  perform  their  duties  within  what 
remains  of  it,  presents  a  question  of  great  difficulty,  on  which 
I  express  no  opinion.  Whatever  may  be  the  correct  decision 
of  this  question,  immediate  legislation  is  required;  because  it 
is  very  certain  that  Congress  will  never  consent  to  maintain 
the  machinery  provided  for  the  government  of  the  entire  Terri- 
tory, merely  for  the  purpose  of  governing  the  twenty-five 
hundred  or  three  thousand  inhabitants  who  reside  beyond  the 
limits  of  the  State."14 

The  point  on  which  Buchanan  would  give  no  opinion  was 
precisely  the  course  that  Catlin  proposed  to  pursue.  He  rea- 
soned that  if  the  laws  of  Wisconsin  Territory  were  still  in  force, 
it  was  "equally  clear  that  the  officers  necessary  to  carry  out 
those  laws  are  still  in  office."  This  would  include  the  Secretary 
and  the  Delegate  in  Congress.  In  regard  to  the  delegate, 
Catlin  cited  a  precedent  in  the  fact  that  "after  the  organization 
of  the  State  of  Michigan  but  before  her  admission,  General 

13  This  letter  of  Catlin's  is  published  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  1  :$3S4>  where  it  is 
incorrectly  stated  that  the  letter  was  read  to  the  Stillwater  meeting  of  August  4,  1848. 

14  Buchanan's  opinion  is  published  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  1 :54~56. 


42  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

George  W.  Jones  was  elected  by  the  Territory  of  Michigan, 
(now  the  State  of  Wisconsin)  and  was  allowed  to  take  his  seat." 
"It  is  my  opinion,"  Catlin  continued,  "that  if  your  people 
were  to  elect  a  delegate  this  fall,  he  would  be  allowed  to  take 
his  seat  in  December,  and  then  a  government  might  be  fully 
organized;  and  unless  a  delegate  is  elected  and  sent  on,  I  do  not 
believe  a  government  will  be  organized  for  several  years.  If 
Mr.  Tweedy15  were  to  resign,  (and  he  would  if  requested),  I 
do  not  see  anything  to  prevent  my  issuing  a  proclamation  for 
an  election  to  fill  the  vacancy,  as  the  acting  Governor;  but  I 
should  not  like  to  do  so  unless  the  people  would  act  under  it 
and  hold  the  election.  If  a  delegate  were  elected  by  color  of 
law,  Congress  would  never  inquire  into  the  legality  of  the  elec- 
tion. It  is  the  opinion  of  most  all  this  way  that  the  government 
of  the  Territory  of  Wisconsin  still  continues,  although  it  is 
nearly  inoperative,  for  want  of  a  court  and  legislature."16 

This  scheme  was  actually  carried  through.  Tweedy  resigned 
his  office  as  delegate  on  September  18,  1848.  Since  the  Gover- 
nor of  Wisconsin  Territory,  Henry  M.  Dodge,  had  been  elected 
to  the  Senate  from  Wisconsin,  Secretary  Catlin,  on  the  theory 
that  the  election  of  Dodge  to  the  Senate  vacated  the  office  of 
Governor,  came  to  the  residuum  of  Wisconsin  Territory  as 
acting  Governor  and  issued  a  proclamation  on  October  9, 
calling  an  election  for  October  30,  for  the  purpose  of  electing 
a  delegate  to  Congress  from  Wisconsin  Territory. 

In  the  campaign  which  followed,  Sibley  and  Henry  M.  Rice, 
both  of  Mendota,  were  the  only  candidates  and  neither  seems 
to  have  made  much  effort  to  be  elected,  although  the  friends  of 


15  Tweedy  was  the  delegate  from  Wisconsin  Territory  at  the  time  of  the  admission  of  the 
State  and  lived  in  the  region  embraced  within  the  State. 

16  Friends  of  Sibley  living  in  Wisconsin  wrote  to  him  giving  the  information  that  Catlin 
would  call  an  election  and  urging  him  to  establish  his  residence  in  Wisconsin  Territory  and  be 
eligible  as  a  candidate  for  delegate.  D.  G.  Fenton  to  Sibley,  Sept.  4,  1848;  also  J.  D.  Doty  to 
Sibley,  Sept.  4,  1848. 


MAKING  OF  A  NEW  TERRITORY 


43 


both  carried  on  an  active  and  spirited  campaign.17  In  the 
latter  part  of  September  a  report  was  circulated  at  Stillwater 
that  Sibley  was  willing  to  withdraw  in  favor  of  a  St.  Croix 
candidate,  if  one  was  placed  in  the  field,  and  if  Rice  became  a 
candidate.  Friends  of  Sibley  who  lived  at  Stillwater  wrote  to 
him  and  urged  that  he  not  withdraw.  The  chief  interest  which 
the  citizens  of  Stillwater  had  in  a  candidate  from  that  section 
of  the  territory  seemed  to  have  been  that  they  were  interested 
in  the  removal  of  the  Land  Office  from  St.  Croix,  Wisconsin, 
to  Stillwater,  and  believed  that  a  delegate  who  lived  there 
would  work  more  zealously  to  that  end  than  either  Sibley  or 
Rice,  both  of  whom  lived  on  the  Mississippi.18 

In  the  early  part  of  the  campaign  the  sentiment  was  decided 
in  favor  of  Sibley,  but  in  the  last  few  weeks  before  the  election 
Rice  gained  considerable  strength  on  the  St.  Croix,  evidently 
due  to  certain  promises  that  were  made  by  his  friends  and  cer- 
tain reports  that  were  circulated  regarding  Sibley.  Sibley's 
friends  distrusted  Rice  and  believed  that  he  was  using,  or  would 
use,  underhanded  methods  to  gain  the  election.  Some  men 
actually  favored  Rice  because  they  believed  that  he  would  use 
methods  in  securing  the  organization  of  Minnesota  that  Sibley 
would  not  use.19  As  long  as  the  end  was  legitimate,  some 
frontiersmen  were  not  inclined  to  be  too  particular  as  to  the 
means  employed  to  secure  the  end,  provided  it  had,  as  Catlin 
said,  "the  color  of  law." 

An  incident  came  up  during  the  latter  part  of  October  which 
shows  the  attitude  and  methods  used  by  men  on  the  frontier 
to  secure  what  they  regarded  as  their  rights.  Catlin  was  very 
anxious  to  have  a  large  vote  polled,  believing  that  it  would 
operate  to  a  large  extent  in  promoting  the  organization  of 

17  Neither  candidate  was  a  resident  of  Wisconsin  Territory  at  the  time  of  the  election. 
They  were  acting  on  the  theory  that  it  was  not  necessary  for  the  delegate,  as  for  Governor  and 
other  officers,  to  reside  in  the  territory.  Much  will  be  heard  of  Rice  later  on.  He  was  a  fur  trader 
and  had  considerable  influence  with  the  Winnebago  Indians.  During  the  summer  of  1848,  he 
was  helping  remove  these  Indians  to  their  new  reservation  near  Crow  Wing.  This  explains 
why  he  was  not  at  Stillwater  for  the  Convention  and  why  he  did  not  give  more  time  to  the  can- 
vass for  delegate. 

18  Potts  to  Sibley,  Sept.  14,  1848. 


44  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

Minnesota  Territory,  thereby  seemingly  justifying  himself  for 
the  part  he  was  playing  in  the  residuum  of  Wisconsin  Terri- 
tory. He  suggested  to  friends  of  the  two  candidates  the  expedi- 
ency "of  relaxing  the  challenges  so  as  to  admit  of  a  full  vote  of 
all  who  would  be  entitled  to  suffrage  if  the  Territory  was 
organized."  This,  of  course,  proposed  to  let  the  settlers  who 
lived  west  of  the  Mississippi,  and  therefore  outside  of  Wisconsin 
Territory,  have  a  vote  in  the  election  of  a  delegate  from  the 
residuum  of  that  territory.  This  would  admit  some  French 
Canadians  who  were  favorable  to  Sibley  and  the  settlers  at 
Crow  Wing  who  were  favorable  to  Rice.  It  was  probably 
thought  that  if  they  went  west  of  the  Mississippi  for  candidates 
they  might  as  well  go  to  the  same  region  for  voters,  especially 
since  they  were  using  the  name  of  Wisconsin  Territory  only  as 
a  means  of  securing  the  organization  of  Minnesota.  Catlin's 
proposal  was  made  known  to  Sibley  through  David  Lambert, 
of  St.  Paul.  Sibley  objected  to  this  practice  and  gave  several 
reasons  for  doing  so.  In  the  first  place,  he  said  that  Congress 
would  proably  scrutinize  more  strictly  than  usual  the  claims 
of  the  person  elected  as  delegate  when  he  presented  himself  for 
admission  to  the  House,  and  that  any  irregularity  in  the  elec- 
tion would  decrease  the  probability  of  his  admission.  In  the 
second  place,  if  Rice  was  defeated  he  might  choose  to  contest 
the  election  on  the  ground  of  illegality  by  the  admission  of 
these  votes.  In  the  third  place,  and  this  was  the  reason  that 
Rice  favored  the  proposal,  Rice  had  "either  in  his  employ  or 
under  his  immediate  influence  a  large  number  of  men  who  are 
not  legal  voters,  and  who  would  to  a  man  cast  their  votes  for 
him  and  thus  neutralize  those  of  the  old  settlers.,,  Sibley  also 
pointed  out  that  many  of  the  French  could  not  vote  anyway 
under  the  proposal,  since  they  had  not  declared  their  intention 

19  Among  other  things  it  was  reported  that  "the  people  of  St.  Paul  had  everything  cut  and 
dried"  to  elect  Sibley  and  defeat  Stillwater  in  their  efforts  to  get  the  Land  Office.  Also  it  was 
said  that  Sibley  had  "packed"  the  Stillwater  Convention  by  bringing  over  some  French  Cana- 
dians to  vote  for  him  for  delegate.  Jacob  Fisher  to  Sibley,  Sept.  24, 1 848.  Also  Moss  to  Sibley, 
Oct.  10  and  Oct.  20,  1848;  and  Potts  to  Sibley,  Oct.  3,  1848. 


MAKING  OF  A  NEW  TERRITORY  45 

of  becoming  citizens,  and  that  the  proposition  would  operate 
chiefly  in  favor  of  Rice.  Sibley  maintained  that  it  was  not 
necessary  to  resort  to  illegal  means  to  secure  the  organization 
of  Minnesota,  since  the  delegate  could  easily  explain  that  there 
were  more  people  in  the  region  than  was  indicated  by  the  elec- 
tion returns.  He  therefore  insisted  that  the  election  laws  be 
followed  to  the  letter.20  In  spite  of  his  attitude,  however,  the 
two  election  precincts  were  established.  He  then  protested  to 
Catlin  who  skillfully  shifted  the  responsibility  to  the  county 
commissioners  of  St.  Croix  county  who  established  the  pre- 
cincts.21 

The  election  was  held  on  October  30,  1848,  without  any 
serious  disturbance  or  disorder,  but  with  circumstances  which 
suggest  irregularities  on  the  part  of  some  of  Rice's  friends.22 
Sibley  was  elected  and  received  from  Catlin  a  certificate  of 
election.  He  had,  therefore,  a  double  election,  one  by  the 
Stillwater  Convention  as  "delegate"  from  the  proposed  Terri- 
tory of  Minnesota  and  one  by  virtue  of  what  was  claimed  to 
be  a  legal  election  in  Wisconsin  Territory,  as  a  regular  terri- 
torial delegate. 

Sibley  left  for  Washington  before  the  news  of  the  presi- 
dential election  was  received  in  Minnesota,  and  when  his  con- 
stituents heard  that  Taylor  had  been  elected  President  they 
feared  that  the  desire  to  get  the  first  chance  at  the  patronage 
in  a  new  territory  would  cause  the  Whig  members  of  the  House 
not  to  favor  the  immediate  organization  of  Minnesota.  J.  S. 
Norris  wrote  a  very  prophetic  letter  to  Sibley  on  December  31, 
1848,  in  regard  to  the  passage  of  the  Minnesota  bill.  "Some 
doubts  are  entertained  here,"  he  wrote,  "with  regard  to  our 
getting  an  organization  this  session  as  it  is  thought  that  the 
Whig  administration  will  prefer  making  the  original  appoint- 
ments to  having  Democrats  in  office  or  making  immediate 

20  David  Lambert  to  Sibley,  Oct.  u,  1848.  Also  Henry  Jackson  to  Sibley,  Oct.  14,  1848. 
A  copy  of  Sibley's  reply  is  in  the  Sibley  Papers  under  date  of  Oct.  12,  1848. 

21  Moss  to  Sibley,  Oct.  20,  1848.    Also  Catlin  to  Sibley,  Oct.  27,  1848. 

22  Instances  of  irregularity  are  mentioned  in  a  letter  from  William  Duger  to  W.  H.  Forbes, 
Oct.  31,  1848,  in  Sibley  Papers. 


46  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

removals.  But  if  this  is  the  only  difficulty  it  seems  to  me  it 
can  be  avoided  by  the  passage  of  the  bill  during  the  last  hours 
of  the  session  for  I  think  we  had  better  have  Whig  officers  than 
no  organization  at  all." 

Some  of  Sibley's  influential  friends  assisted  him  by  writing 
to  members  of  Congress  in  behalf  of  Minnesota.  The  most 
distinguished  of  these  friends  was  Lewis  Cass,  the  recent 
Democratic  candidate  for  President  against  Taylor.  While 
Sibley  was  in  Detroit  on  his  way  to  Washington,  Cass  gave 
him  letters  of  introduction  to  some  of  the  leading  Democrats 
in  Congress.  John  Catlin,  who,  the  election  of  a  delegate  being 
accomplished,  had  again  taken  up  his  residence  at  Madison, 
Wisconsin,  wrote  to  several  members  of  Congress.  He  also 
furnished  Sibley  with  arguments  in  favor  of  the  immediate 
organization  of  Minnesota.  "The  strong  arguments  in  the 
case/'  he  wrote  to  Sibley  on  November  21,  1848,  "are  the 
number  of  inhabitants,  the  amount  of  business,  the  fact  that 
the  government  has  sold  public  lands  and  invited  the  people 
to  settle  there,  and  the  fact  that  a  government  has  once  been 
extended  over  them.  If  the  government  will  not  allow  a  State 
to  repudiate  or  secede,  can  it  nullify  or  repudiate  a  State  or 
Territory  and  to  repeal  the  law  establishing  a  government  is 
the  same  thing.  If  a  State  cannot  secede  without  the  consent 
of  the  Union,  the  Government  cannot  throw  off  a  people  with- 
out their  consent  when  a  government  has  once  been  estab- 
lished." Catlin  thought  that  the  question  was  so  plain  that  it 
needed  "only  to  be  understood  to  be  correctly  decided." 

On  his  way  to  the  national  capital,  Sibley  fell  in  with  some 
congressmen  who  were  on  their  way  to  Washington  for  the 
opening  of  the  session  and  he  had  conversations  with  them 
regarding  the  situation  on  the  northwestern  frontier.  He 
mentioned  especially  Wentworth,  of  Illinois,  who  manifested 
much  interest  in  Sibley's  mission,  but  who  advised  him  not  to 
ask  to  be  admitted  as  a  delegate  from  Wisconsin  Territory. 
Wentworth  believed  that  Sibley  would  fail  in  this  if  he  at- 
tempted it  and  that  such  failure  would  prejudice  Congress 


MAKING  OF  A  NEW  TERRITORY  47 

against  the  organization  of  Minnesota.  He  believed  that  Sib- 
ley could  do  more  for  Minnesota  as  a  lobby  member  than  as  a 
delegate  from  Wisconsin  Territory.  Sibley  arrived  in  Washing- 
ton two  days  before  the  opening  of  Congress  and  was  soon  con- 
vinced that  his  admission  to  a  seat  was  extremely  uncertain,  if 
not  improbable.23 

It  was  a  momentous  period  in  American  history  and  one 
not  very  favorable  to  the  organization  of  a  territory  when 
Sibley  sent  in  his  credentials  as  a  delegate.  The  Mexican  War 
had  just  been  fought,  bringing  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
United  States  the  immense  cession  of  territory  in  the  west  and 
southwest.  It  would  be  necessary  before  long  for  Congress  to 
make  some  arrangement  for  territorial  organization  in  that 
region.  The  questions  which  finally  led  to  the  Compromise  of 
1850  were  taking  shape  in  the  minds  of  members  of  Congress. 
In  that  same  year,  1848,  the  Free  Soil  Party  had  come  into 
existence  to  fight  against  the  further  extension  of  slavery  and, 
while  it  did  not  carry  any  States  in  the  election,  it  did  take 
enough  votes  from  Cass  to  give  New  York  and  the  election  to 
Taylor.  Congress  was  preparing  itself  for  the  great  struggle 
that  was  coming.  These  were  the  conditions  when  Sibley 
sought  admission  and  began  his  fight  for  the  organization  of 
Minnesota. 

Sibley's  credentials  were  presented  on  the  first  day  of  the 
session  by  James  Wilson,  of  New  Hampshire,  in  whose  hands 
they  were  placed,  as  Sibley  said,  because  "he  had  formerly 
lived  in  Iowa  and  might  be  supposed  to  be  better  informed  as  to 
our  situation  and  geographical  position,  than  any  other  mem- 
ber."24   Wilson  rose  to  a  privileged  question  and,  in  presenting 

23  Sibley,  First  Address  to  the  People  of  Minnesota  Territory,  March  10,  1849.  Published 
in  pamphlet  form  in  Washington,  copies  of  which  are  in  the  library  of  the  Minnesota  Historical 
Society.    It  is  also  published  in  West,  Sibley,  appendix,  442. 

24  How  little  the  frontier  region  of  the  upper  Mississippi  valley  was  known  to  even  well- 
informed  men  of  the  time  is  shown  by  the  speeches  of  some  members  of  Congress  while  the 
Minnesota  bill  was  under  consideration.  Root,  of  Ohio,  especially  denounced  as  farcical  and 
absurd  the  formation  of  a  territory  in  such  a  region  as  Minnesota.  "When  God's  footstool  is  so 
densely  populated,"  he  said,  "that  each  human  being  can  only  occupy  two  feet  square,  then, 
and  not  till  then,  will  white  men  go  to  that  hyperborean  region  of  the  Northwest,  fit  only  to  be 
the  home  of  savages  and  wild  beasts."    Congressional  Globe,  30.  Cong.  2  Sess. 


48  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

the  credentials,  explained  the  circumstances  under  which 
Sibley  had  been  elected,  and  asked  that  he  be  admitted  without 
objection.  The  matter  was  not  to  be  so  easily  disposed  of, 
however,  since  Cobb,  of  Georgia,  thought  the  matter  should  be 
investigated  by  a  committee.25  Wilson  thereupon  submitted 
the  papers  and  moved  that  they  be  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  Elections.  This  motion  was  agreed  to  and  the  question  of 
Sibley's  admission  was  not  settled  for  six  weeks.  During  this 
time  Sibley  was,  through  courtesy,  permitted  to  occupy  a  seat 
in  the  House  but  he  was,  as  he  afterwards  explained,  "little 
more  than  a  lobby  member.' ' 

At  the  time  that  his  credentials  were  presented  there  was 
some  curiosity  manifested  by  the  members  to  see  what  kind 
of  a  person  had  been  elected  to  represent  the  distant  and  wild 
territory  claiming  representation  in  Congress.  "I  was  told," 
Sibley  later  wrote,  "that  there  was  some  disappointment  felt 
when  I  made  my  appearance,  for  it  was  expected  that  the  dele- 
gate from  this  remote  region  would  make  his  debut,  if  not  in 
full  Indian  costume,  at  least  with  some  peculiarities  of  dress  and 
manners,  characteristic  of  the  rude  and  semi-civilized  people 
who  had  sent  him  to  the  capital."26  No  doubt  Sibley's  stately 
bearing  and  dignified  appearance,  his  high  character  and  attain- 
ments, had  much  to  do  with  the  final  action  of  the  House  in 
admitting  him  to  a  seat. 

The  Committee  on  Elections  took  up  the  consideration  of 
Sibley's  credentials  and  his  right  to  a  seat  in  the  House.  Boy- 
den,  of  North  Carolina,  was  the  principal  opponent.  He  made 
a  "long  and  labored  argument"  against  Sibley's  right  to  a  seat 
and  "ridiculed  the  pretentions  that  a  territorial  organization 
still  existed  in  the  country  north  and  west  of  Wisconsin."  On 
December  22,  Sibley  delivered  a  speech  before  the  committee 
in  support  of  his  claims.  He  stated  that  no  question  had  been 
or  could  be  raised  with  regard  to  the  legality  of  his  election. 

75  ibid,  v.  2. 

26  Sibley,  "Reminiscences  of  the  Early  Days  in  Minnesota,"  Minnesota  Historical  Col- 
lections, 3:270. 


MAKING  OF  A  NEW  TERRITORY  49 

The  only  question  involved  was  whether  "the  residuum  of 
Wisconsin  Territory,  after  the  admission  of  the  State,  remained 
in  possession  of  the  same  rights  and  immunities  which  were 
secured  to  the  people  of  the  whole  Territory  by  the  organic 
law."  The  failure  of  Congress  to  repeal  the  organic  act  of 
Wisconsin  Territory,  Sibley  argued,  made  it  clear  that  the 
4  residuum  remains  under  the  full  operation  of  the  same  organic 
law."  Good  faith  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  he  said, 
demanded  that  the  people  whom  he  had  come  to  represent 
should  be  given  proper  representation.  "The  Government 
of  the  United  States,  when  it  invited  its  citizens  to  emigrate 
to  the  Territory  of  Wisconsin  by  the  formation  of  a  temporary 
government,  must  have  intended  to  act  in  good  faith  towards 
them,  by  continuing  over  them  the  provisions  of  the  organic 
law.  Sixteen  thousand  acres  of  land  had  been  purchased,  for 
the  most  part  by  bona  fide  settlers,  the  proceeds  of  which  have 
gone  into  your  treasury.  Taxed  equally  with  other  inhabitants 
of  the  Union  for  the  support  of  the  General  Government,  they 
are  certainly  entitled  to  equal  privileges."  The  people  whom 
he  represented  were  not  asking  to  have  rights  given  them;  they 
had  already  enjoyed  these  rights  and  privileges.  They  had  par- 
ticipated in  the  election  of  a  delegate,  they  had  a  full  county 
organization  (St.  Croix  county),  and  had  formed  a  part  of  a 
judicial  circuit.  If  laws  were  in  force  among  them  it  was 
because  of  the  organic  law  of  Wisconsin  Territory,  the  same 
act  that  entitled  them  to  a  delegate  in  Congress.  In  closing 
his  speech,  Sibley  paid  a  high  tribute  to  the  pioneers  of  the 
Northwest  and  made  an  earnest  appeal  for  a  fair  decision. 
"The  people  have  emigrated  to  the  remote  region  they  now 
inhabit  under  many  disadvantages.  They  have  not  been 
attracted  thither  by  the  glitter  of  inexhaustible  gold  mines, 
but  with  the  spirit  which  has  actuated  all  our  pioneers  of  civiliza- 
tion. They  have  gone  there  to  labor  with  the  axe,  the  anvil, 
and  the  plow.  They  have  elected  a  delegate,  with  the  full 
assurance  that  they  had  a  right  to  do  so,  and  he  presents  him- 
self here  for  admission.    Sir,  was  this  a  question  in  which  the 


50  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

consequences  would  be  confined  to  me  personally,  the  honor- 
able members  of  this  House  would  not  find  me  here,  day  after 
day,  wearying  their  patience  by  my  appeals  and  explanations. 
But  believing  as  I  do,  before  God,  that  my  case  and  the  question 
whether  there  is  any  law  in  the  Territory  of  Wisconsin  are 
intimately  and  indissolubly  blended  together,  I  trust  that  the 
House  of  Representatives  will,  by  its  decision  of  the  claim 
before  it,  establish  the  principle,  which  shall  be  as  a  land 
mark  in  all  coming  time,  that  citizens  of  this  mighty  Republic, 
upon  whom  the  rights  and  immunities  of  a  civil  government 
have  once  been  bestowed  by  an  act  of  Congress,  shall  not  be 
deprived  of  these  without  fault  or  agency  of  their  own,  unless 
under  circumstances  of  grave  and  imperious  necessity,  involving 
the  safety  and  well-being  of  the  whole  country."27  The  Com- 
mittee on  Elections  brought  in  two  reports,  the  majority  report 
being  favorable  to  Sibley  and  based  upon  his  arguments.28 

On  January  2,  1849,  Thompson,  of  Indiana,  from  the  Com- 
mittee on  Elections,  reported  to  the  House  with  the  resolu- 
tion: "Resolved,  that  Henry  Hastings  Sibley  be  admitted  to  a 
seat  on  the  floor  of  the  House  of  Representatives  as  a  Delegate 
from  the  Territory  of  Wisconsin."  The  report  and  resolution 
were  laid  on  the  table  and  ordered  to  be  printed.  They  were 
taken  up  again  on  January  15,  and  Sibley  was  seated  by  a  vote 
of  124  to  62.29  An  analysis  of  this  vote  reveals  some  interesting 
facts.  Of  the  124  voting  in  the  affirmative  65  were  Democrats 
and  59  were  Whigs.  Of  the  62  voting  in  the  negative,  27  were 
Democrats  and  35  Whigs.  The  resolution  was  carried,  there- 
fore, by  a  majority  vote  of  both  parties.  Sibley  had  been 
elected  delegate,  not  as  a  member  of  any  political  party,  but 
as  the  most  influential  man  in  the  region,  and  the  vote  on  seating 
him  shows  that  politics  was  not  the  controlling  factor  in  the 
decision  of  the  House.  Of  the  124  voting  in  the  affimative, 
57  were  from  the  East,  of  whom  35  were  Whigs  and  22  Demo- 

27  West,  Sibley,  appendix,  435-441. 

28  Sibley,  First  Address  to  the  People  of  Minnesota,  March  10,  1849.  Also  published  in 
West,  Sibley,  appendix,  442-443. 

29  Congressional  Globe,  30  Cong.  2  Sess.  137,  259,  260. 


MAKING  OF  A  NEW  TERRITORY  5 1 

crats;  38  were  from  the  West,  of  whom  13  were  Whigs  and  25 
Democrats;  29  were  from  the  South,  of  whom  11  were  Whigs 
and  18  Democrats.  Of  the  63  votes  in  the  negative,  24  were 
from  the  East,  of  whom  19  were  Whigs  and  5  Democrats;  2 
were  from  the  West,  one  Whig  and  one  Democrat;  3  were 
from  the  South,  of  whom  15  were  Whigs  and  21  Democrats. 
Grouped  according  to  sections,  therefore,  the  East  voted  57 
for  and  24  against.  The  West  voted  38  for  and  2  against;  the 
South  voted  29  for  and  2&  against.  This  indicates  that  the 
South  was  not  anxious  to  have  a  territory  organized  in  the 
North  and  started  on  the  way  to  statehood  without  a  corre- 
sponding territory  in  the  South,  but  the  vote  is  not  as  large  that 
way  as  might  have  been  expected.30 

It  is  interesting  to  note  some  of  the  individuals  and  how 
they  voted  on  the  question.  Abraham  Lincoln  was  present  and 
voted  in  the  affirmative;  also  Giddings,  of  Ohio,  Tallmadge,  of 
New  York,  Wentworth,  of  Illinois,  and  Wilmot,  of  Pennsyl- 
vania. On  the  other  hand,  Horace  Greely,  of  New  York, 
Andrew  Johnson,  of  Tennessee,  King,  Toombs,  and  Cobb,  all 
from  Georgia,  and  Boyden,  of  North  Carolina,  were  among 
those  voting  in  the  negative. 

Although  the  House  of  Representatives  had  voted  to  seat 
Sibley  as  a  delegate  from  Wisconsin  Territory,  it  did  not  admit 
the  continuance  of  the  territorial  organization.  This  was  shown 
a  few  days  after  Sibley  was  seated  when  Mullin,  of  New  York, 
who  had  opposed  seating  Sibley,  in  order  to  open  the  question 
for  debate,  as  there  had  not  been  an  opportunity  before  on 
account  of  the  rule  of  the  previous  question,  moved  to  add  an 
amendment  to  the  general  appropriation  bill  for  an  appropria- 
tion of  #10,500  for  the  territorial  officers  of  Wisconsin  Territory, 
the  same  amount  as  was  included  for  Oregon.  Although  this 
amendment  was  finally  rejected  it  led  to  a  lively  debate,  and 
the  House  was  taunted  with  having  admitted  a  delegate  to 

30  In  this  analysis  East  means  east  of  the  AUeghanies  and  north  of  the  Potomac;  West 
means  west  of  the  AUeghanies  and  north  of  the  Ohio;  South  means  south  of  the  Potomoc  and 
Ohio  rivers. 


52  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

represent  a  territory  which  in  reality  had  no  legal  existence.31 
This  action  of  the  House  showed  that  there  was  a  repudiation 
of  the  idea  that  there  was  still  a  Territory  of  Wisconsin,  and 
indicated  that  the  members  who  had  voted  to  seat  Sibley  had 
been  influenced  by  other  considerations.  This  was  partly  due 
to  the  personal  regard  which  many  members  had  for  Sibley 
and  their  willingness  to  help  along  the  organization  of  Minne- 
sota Territory.  This  action  of  Congress  in  refusing  the  appro- 
priation brought  disappointment  to  Catlin,  the  acting  governor 
of  Wisconsin  Territory,  who  called  the  election  for  delegate. 
He  wrote  to  Sibley  in  regard  to  the  payment  of  his  salary  and 
Sibley  brought  it  before  the  House  but  without  success. 

The  great  object  to  which  Sibley  now  gave  his  attention 
was  the  passage  of  the  bill  for  the  organization  of  Minnesota 
Territory.  On  the  first  day  of  the  session,  immediately  after 
roll  call,  Stephen  A.  Douglas  gave  notice  that  he  would  on  the 
following  day  or  at  an  early  day  ask  leave  to  introduce  bills  to 
establish  the  territories  of  Minnesota,  Nebraska,  and  New 
Mexico,  and  a  bill  for  the  admission  of  California  as  a  State.32 
When  the  bill  was  drawn  up,  Douglas  sent  it  to  Sibley,  who  was 
allowed  to  change  certain  provisions  in  order  to  meet  the  wishes 
of  his  constituents.  The  principal  change  made  by  Sibley  was 
in  regard  to  the  location  of  the  capital.  In  the  bill  as  drawn  by 
Douglas,  Mendota,  Sibley's  home  town,  was  made  the  capital. 
Sibley  knew  that  it  was  the  wish  of  many  people  in  the  territory 
that  the  capital  should  be  at  St.  Paul.  A  meeting  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Territories  was  called  and  Sibley  discussed  the  ques- 
tion at  some  length  before  Douglas  would  consent  to  the 
change.33 

The  Minnesota  bill  came  up  for  debate  on  January  18, 
1849.  Butler,  of  South  Carolina,  although  he  stated  that  he 
would  probably  not  oppose  its  passage,  reminded  the  Senate 

31  Congressional  Globe,  30  Cong.  2  Sess.  295-297.  Also  Sibley,  First  Address  to  the  People 
of  Minnesota  Territory,  March  10,  1849. 

32  Congressional  Globe,  30  Cong.  2  Sess.  295-297. 

33  Ibid,  1.  Also  Sibley,  First  Address  to  the  People  of  Minnesota  Territory.  A  copy  of  the 
bill  with  corrections  made  in  Sibley's  handwriting  is  in  the  Sibley  Papers. 


MAKING  OF  A  NEW  TERRITORY  $% 

that  the  proposed  territory  included  some  20,000  acres  of  land 
covered  by  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  which  had  provided  that 
not  more  than  five  States  should  be  formed  out  of  the  North- 
west Territory.  He  considered  this  a  violation  of  the  Ordi- 
nance of  1787,  but  he  admitted  that  the  Senate  no  longer  had 
any  control  over  the  matter,  and  stated  that  he  rose  simply  to 
remind  the  Senate  of  this  situation.  Westcott,  of  Florida, 
thought  that  the  bill  as  originally  drawn  provided  for  a  terri- 
torial judiciary  which  was  entirely  unnecessary,  as  the  popula- 
tion would  not  exceed  7,000  at  most.  He  thought  that  it  would 
be  better  to  leave  the  judiciary  to  be  provided  later  when  the 
population  had  considerably  augmented.  Douglas  reminded 
him  that  the  provision  was  the  same  as  that  contained  in  other 
territorial  bills  and  that  the  committee  had  thought  best  to 
put  Minnesota  upon  the  same  footing  as  other  territories.  On 
the  following  day,  King,  of  Alabama,  asked  regarding  the 
population  of  Minnesota  and  was  informed  by  Douglas  that  it 
was  probably  between  8,000  and  10,000,  at  least  more  than 
the  usual  number  necessary  for  the  establishment  of  a  territorial 
government.34  This  population,  Douglas  explained,  was  in 
compact  settlements  scattered  throughout  Minnesota  and, 
while  not  adjoining  each  other,  these  were  within  the  proper 
limits  of  the  territory  and  in  a  position  where  laws  could  very 
well  apply.  Westcott  informed  King  that  he  had  had  "a  very 
interesting  conversation  with  the  delegate  from  Minnesota 
in  relation  to  this  very  subject.  .  .  .  This  delegate  has  impressed 
upon  my  mind  the  great  necessity  of  having  a  territorial  govern- 
ment for  Minnesota  by  a  variety  of  reasons.  Emigrants  are 
crowding  rapidly  into  the  territory  and  the  inhabitants  are 
building  mills  of  a  very  important  character.  They  are  abso- 
lutely making  improvements  on  the  rivers  and  preparing  to 

34  Douglas  stated  the  population  to  be  about  twice  as  large  as  it  actually  was.  When  the 
territorial  census  was  taken  in  1849  there  were  only  4,764  inhabitants,  including  some  317 
soldiers  and  their  families.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  Minnesota  had  the  smallest  population  of  any 
territory  at  the  time  of  its  organization.  This  is  another  illustration  of  the  ignorance  regarding 
frontier  conditions.  It  is  interesting  to  note  how  the  population  of  Minnesota  grows  in  each  of 
the  speeches  during  the  debate  on  the  bill. 


54  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

make  a  dam  along  the  side  of  one  of  the  larger  streams.  There 
is  no  law  to  affect  the  actions  of  individuals  in  this  respect; 
and  in  fact  ever  since  Wisconsin  was  admitted  into  the  Union, 
there  have  been  no  laws  of  any  description  to  regulate  the 
affairs  of  the  inhabitants.  I  am  told  that  there  are  some  forty 
lawyers  practicing  there,  which  is  a  favorable  sign  as  to  the 
resources  and  extent  of  settlement.  I  am  fully  satisfied  of  the 
necessity  of  immediate  organization  of  a  government  over 
them."35  Dodge,  of  Iowa,  made  a  strong  plea  in  favor  of  the 
immediate  organization  of  Minnesota,  and  Butler,  of  South 
Carolina,  stated  that  "if  there  are  ten  thousand  inhabitants 
in  that  Territory,  they  certainly  demand  at  least  ordinary 
territorial  government. "  This  question  of  population  was  the 
chief  objection  raised  in  the  Senate  to  the  immediate  organiza- 
tion of  Minnesota,  and  the  Senators  seemed  disposed  to  take 
the  statement  of  Douglas  as  satisfactory  on  that  point.  Doug- 
las assured  the  Senate  also  that  the  Minnesota  bill  did  "not 
contain  a  single  peculiar  provision,"  and  that  it  was  drawn  up 
as  other  territorial  bills.  The  bill  was  then  ordered  to  its 
engrossment,  read  a  third  time  by  unanimous  consent,  and 
passed.36 

The  Minnesota  bill  came  up  in  the  House  on  February  8, 
1849,  when  Smith,  of  Indiana,  from  the  Committee  on  Terri- 
tories, reported  it  back  with  amendments.  The  committee, 
being  desirous  of  early  action  on  the  bill,  had  instructed  the 
chairman  to  report  an  amendment  to  strike  out  the  appropria- 
tion, in  order  to  obviate  the  necessity  of  referring  it  to  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole.  Smith  explained  that  the  bill  con- 
tained nothing  with  which  the  members  of  the  House  were  not 
familiar  and,  since  it  had  already  been  printed,  he  hoped  that 
the  House  would  put  it  immediately  upon  its  passage.  The 
speaker  ruled,  however,  that,  since  the  bill  as  it  came  from  the 
Senate  had  contained  a  provision  for  an  appropriation,  it  would 

36  Congressional  Globe \  30  Cong.  2  Sess.  298-99.  This  illustrates  Sibley's  method  of  working 
by  interviews  with  the  members  of  Congress. 

36  Congressional  Globe,  30  Cong.  2  Sess.  68,  182,  286,  299. 


MAKING  OF  A  NEW  TERRITORY 


55 


be  necessary  under  the  rules  of  the  House  for  it  to  receive  its 
first  consideration  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  state 
of  the  Union. 

Sibley  had  the  following  letter  printed  and  a  copy  placed 
on  the  desk  of  each  congressman:37 

"House  of  Representatives, 
Saturday  February  17,  1849. 
Sir:  It  is  not  probable  that  the  bill  for  the  organization  of  Minnesota 
Territory  will  be  reached  in  the  order  of  business  before  the  committee  of  the 
whole.  As  a  failure  of  this  bill  would  be  a  most  certain  calamity  to  the 
people  of  that  territory,  I  take  the  liberty  to  appeal  to  your  kind  feelings,  in 
their  behalf,  to  sustain  me  in  a  motion  I  shall  make  on  Monday  to  suspend 
the  rules,  that  the  bill  may  be  taken  up  and  passed.  It  is  not  probable  that 
any  debate  will  take  place  upon  it.    I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully, 

Your  obediant  servant, 

H.  H.  Sibley." 

The  Minnesota  bill  was  taken  up  again  on  February  22, 
and  Sibley  moved  that  the  rules  be  suspended  in  order  to  enable 
him  to  submit  a  motion  to  discharge  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  from  further  consideration  of  the  measure  so  as  to  bring 
it  before  the  House.  This  motion  was  carried.  Although  he 
had  been  appealed  to  by  several  members  not  to  do  so,  Sibley 
then  moved  the  previous  question.  At  this  point  Boyden,  of 
North  Carolina,  rose  to  a  point  of  order  and  claimed  that  a 
territorial  delegate  had  no  right  to  move  the  previous  question. 
The  Speaker  decided  the  point  against  him  and  he  appealed 
from  the  decision  of  the  chair,  but  the  House  sustained  the 
Speaker's  ruling.  The  main  question  was  finally  put  and  was 
carried  by  a  vote  of  102  to  99.  Most  of  the  amendments  were 
agreed  to  without  debate.  The  most  important  amendment, 
from  the  standpoint  of  Congressional  debate,  was  the  following: 
"This  Act  shall  take  effect  from  and  after  the  10th  day  of 
March,  1849."  Kaufman,  of  Texas,  a  Democrat  who  had 
voted  to  seat  Sibley,  asked  if  the  amendment  was  not  offered 
palpably  to  give  the  appointment  of  territorial  officers  to  Tay- 
lor instead  of  to  Polk.    The  Speaker  replied  that  he  had  no 

37  A  copy  of  this  letter  is  among  the  Sibley  Papers. 

38  Congressional  Globe,  30  Cong.  2  Sess.,  485,  513,  581-85. 


$6  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

information  on  the  subject.  The  amendment  was  then  agreed 
to  without  further  debate,  by  a  vote  of  101  to  95.  On  February 
28,  the  Minnesota  bill  came  up  for  passage.  Sibley,  expressing 
his  sense  of  the  importance  of  the  bill  and  his  unwillingness  to 
detain  the  House  with  any  remarks,  moved  the  previous  ques- 
tion and  his  motion  was  carried.  The  main  question  was  then 
put  and  the  bill  was  passed. 

The  bill  as  amended  in  the  House  was  returned  to  the  Senate 
and  called  forth  a  long  debate  between  Whigs  and  Democrats 
over  the  "spoils  of  office."    The  Senate  Committee  on  Terri- 
tories had  agreed  to  all  amendments  except  the  one  providing 
that  the  act  should  take  effect  on  March  10.    Walker,  of  Wis- 
consin, although  he  was  a  Democrat,  hoped  that  the  bill  would 
pass  at  once,  since  it  was  very  important  that  something  be 
done  for  Minnesota  immediately.    He  admitted  that  the  House 
may  have  been  "unnecessarily  careful  in  fixing  the  time"  of 
its  going  into  effect,  but  he  hoped  that  the  bill  would  not  be 
delayed  by  sending  it  back  to  the  House.    Davis,  of  Massachu- 
setts, a  Whig,  thought  this  amendment  a  rather  trifling  matter 
and  hoped  that  the  Senate  would  concur.    Douglas  explained 
that  the  purpose  of  the  amendment  was  to  keep  Polk  from 
making  the  appointments  and  he,  for  one,  was  unwilling  that  a 
Democratic  Senate  should  "pass  this  vote  of  censure/'    The 
Whig  party,  Douglas  said,  was  not  even  willing  to  wait  until 
their  administration  in  order  to  get  the  spoils.    Already  they 
were  asking  that  the  salaries  of  foreign  ministers  be  doubled 
and  they  were  trying  to  create  new  consulships.    They  were 
also  trying  to  organize  a  new  Home  Department  (Department 
of  the  Interior)  with  all  its  train  of  offices.    Douglas  wanted  to 
see  a  test  vote  on  the  subject  and  called  for  the  ayes  and  nays. 
Underwood,  a  Whig  from  Kentucky,  took  up  the  debate  with 
much  vigor.     "Mr.  Douglas,"  he  said,  "reads  us  a  lecture  on 
the  desire  for  spoils,"  and  he  thought  it  very  becoming  of 
Democrats  to  start  this  discussion,  now  that  "the  cup  is  to  be 
applied  to  their  own  lips."    He  thought  there  was  great  wisdom 
in  putting  the  law  into  effect  at  a  distant  date  and  said  that  "at 


MAKING  OF  A  NEW  TERRITORY  57 

the  last  gasp  of  this  antinomian  administration,  in  which  so 
much  is  yielded  to  good  works,  we  should  not  harass  the  Execu- 
tive by  hunting  up  new  offices  for  him  to  fill."  Allen,  a  Demo- 
crat from  Ohio,  thought  that  the  Whigs  should  be  modest  in 
commencing  their  career  in  power.  'They  will  be,"  he  said, 
"the  first  minority  administration;  they  will  not  have  a  major- 
ity of  the  American  people  with  them;  .  .  .  they  are  not 
altogether  sure  that  there  is  such  a  thing  as  a  living  Whiggery." 
This  discussion  between  Whigs  and  Democrats  as  to  their  rela- 
tive merits  and  desires  for  the  spoils  of  office  fills  several  pages 
of  the  Congressional  Globe,  The  final  outcome  of  the  matter 
was  that  the  Senate  voted,  30  to  18,  not  to  concur  in  the  amend- 
ment.   This  was  a  strict  party  vote.39 

It  was  necessary,  therefore,  for  the  bill  to  go  back  to  the 
House  and,  as  it  was  so  near  the  end  of  the  session,  it  was  pos- 
sible if  not  probable  that  it  would  yet  fail  of  passage.  Sibley's 
anxiety  during  these  last  days  of  the  session  may  well  be 
imagined.  It  was  at  this  point  that  a  plan  of  action  was  decided 
upon  which  was  destined  to  bring  success.  The  bill  for  the 
formation  of  the  Interior  Department  had  passed  the  House 
and  its  fate  was  yet  to  be  decided  in  the  Senate.  The  story  of 
how  this  measure  was  linked  with  the  Minnesota  bill  and  both 
passed  in  the  last  hours  of  the  session  is  best  told  in  Sibley's 
own  words.  "It  was  while  laboring  under  great  apprehensions," 
he  wrote,  "lest  the  Minnesota  bill  should  be  defeated,  that  I 
chanced  to  find  myself  in  the  Senate.  I  expressed  my  fears  to 
several  of  the  democratic  Senators,  who  were  my  personal 
friends,  and  they,  to  the  member  of  five  or  six,  authorized  me 
to  say  to  the  Whig  leaders  in  the  House,  that  unless  that  body 
receded  from  its  amendment,  and  thus  permit  Minnesota  to  be 
organized,  they  would  cast  their  votes  against  the  bill  for  the 
formation  of  the  Interior  Department.  I  hastened  back  to  the 
House,  called  together  several  of  the  prominent  Whig  members, 
and  informed  them  of  the  state  of  affairs.    Satisfied  that  the 

39  Congressional  Globe,  30  Cong.  2  Sess.,  617,  635,  637,  681,  698. 


58  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

votes  of  the  Senators  I  named  would  turn  the  whole  scale  for 
or  against  a  measure  they  particularly  desired  should  succeed, 
they  went  to  work  in  the  House,  and  produced  so  great  a  change 
in  a  short  time,  that  a  motion  to  recede  from  their  amendment 
to  the  Senate  bill  was  adopted  the  same  evening,  by  a  majority 
of  some  thirty  or  forty,  and  into  our  infant  territory  was 
breathed  the  breath  of  life."40  It  was  too  late  in  the  session  to 
include  an  item  in  the  general  appropriation  bill  for  an  appro- 
priation to  carry  the  Minnesota  Act  itito  effect,  and  this  was 
accomplished  by  means  of  a  rider  to  a  bill  for  the  relief  of  James 
Norris,  a  citizen  of  the  Northwest,  whose  claim  was  then  pend- 
ing in  Congress. 

Sibley's  efforts  to  gain  a  territorial  organization  for  his 
constituents  were,  therefore,  rewarded  with  success.  It  had 
been  his  great  purpose  in  going  to  Washington,  and  he  had 
worked  early  and  late  for  its  accomplishment.  Considering 
the  state  of  feelings  over  slavery  that  were  then  crystallizing  for 
the  great  debates  of  the  following  session,  it  was  no  easy  matter 
to  get  the  organization  of  a  territory  anywhere  in  the  country.41 
Sibley  attributed  much  of  his  success  to  the  fact  that  he  had 
not  been  elected  by  any  particular  political  party  and  that  he 
had,  therefore,  been  able  to  work  with  the  leaders  of  both 
parties  in  Congress. 

The  news  of  the  passage  of  the  Minnesota  bill  reached  St. 
Paul  on  April  9,  1849.  The  following  account  of  the  reception 
of  the  news  was  published  in  the  Minnesota  Pioneer  of  April  29 : 
"Monday,  the  ninth  of  April  had  been  a  pleasant  day.  Towards 
evening  the  clouds  gathered,  and  about  dark  commenced  a 
violent  storm  of  wind,  rain,  and  loud  peals  of  thunder.  The 
darkness  was  only  dissipated  by  vivid  flashes  of  lightning.  On 
a  sudden,  in  a  momentary  lull  of  the  wind,  the  silence  was 

40  Sibley,  "Address  before  the  Old  Settlers'  Association  of  Minnesota,"  in  Minnesota  His- 
torical Collections y  i  :62. 

41  Speaking  of  Sibley's  success  in  this  undertaking  the  Chicago  Times,  Jan.  30,  1886,  in 
reviewing  Sibley's  career,  said:  "It  is  scarcely  possible  that  any  other  man  in  the  Northwest 
could  have  attained  the  same  result  at  that  time.  By  finished  manners,  excellent  sense,  and 
knowledge  of  men,  he  speedily  made  friends,  and  succeeded  in  accomplishing  wnat  every  man 
regarded  as  an  impossibility."    Quoted  in  West,  Sibley,  130. 


MAKING  OF  A  NEW  TERRITORY 


59 


broken  by  the  groan  of  an  engine.  In  another  moment,  the 
shrill  whistle  of  a  steamboat  thrilled  through  the  air.  Another 
moment,  and  a  bright  flash  of  lightning  revealed  the  welcome 
shape  of  a  steamboat  just  rounding  the  bluffs,  less  than  a  mile 
below  St.  Paul.  In  an  instant  the  welcome  news  flashed  like 
electricity  throughtout  the  town,  and,  regardless  of  the  pelting 
rain,  the  raging  wind,  and  the  pealing  thunder,  almost  the 
entire  male  population  rushed  to  the  landing  as  the  fine  steam- 
boat "Dr.  Franklin  No.  2"  dashed  gallantly  up  to  the  landing. 
Before  she  was  made  fast  to  the  moorings,  she  was  boarded  by 
the  excited  throng.  The  good  captain  and  clerk  (Captain 
Blakeley)  were  the  great  men  of  the  hour.  Gen.  Taylor  cannot 
be  assailed  with  greater  importunity  for  the  'loaves  and  fishes' 
than  they  were  for  news  and  newspapers.  At  length  the  news 
was  known,  and  one  glad  shout  resounded  through  the  boat, 
taken  up  on  shore  and  echoed  from  our  beetling  bluffs  and  rol- 
ling hills,  proclaimed  the  bill  for  the  organization  of  Minnesota 
Territory  had  become  a  law." 

Sibley  had  taken  up  in  Congress,  or  with  the  departments 
in  Washington,  other  matters  of  importance  to  the  people  of 
Minnesota,  but  had  not  succeeded  in  getting  favorable  action 
on  all  of  them.  He  did,  however,  succeed  in  getting  the  removal 
of  the  land  office  from  St.  Croix,  Wisconsin,  to  Stillwater.  It 
will  be  recalled  that  this  matter  had  entered  to  some  extent  in 
the  short  campaign  for  delegate  in  1848.  The  Wisconsin  mem- 
bers of  Congress  objected  to  the  change  and  the  matter  was 
compromised  by  the  creation  of  a  land  district  for  Wisconsin 
at  Willow  River.42  The  people  of  Minnesota  were  especially 
interested  in  the  construction  of  roads  with  federal  assistance 
and  in  better  mail  service.  Petitions  asking  for  these  things 
had  been  sent  to  Sibley  and  presented  to  Congress,  but  there 
was  not  sufficient  time  to  get  the  desired  results  at  this  session 
of  Congress. 

42  The  opening  of  the  land  office  at  Willow  River,  six  miles  below  Stillwater,  and  the 
transfer  of  the  office  from  St.  Croix  to  Stillwater  were  announced  for  June  30,  1849.  Minnesota 
Register,  April  27,  1849.    Also  Minnesota  Chronicle,  May  31,  1849. 


60  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

Although  the  act  for  the  organization  of  Minnesota  Terri- 
tory was  approved  by  President  Polk  on  March  3,  1849,  the 
territorial  appointments  were  left  to  the  incoming  adminis- 
tration. Two  days  after  the  inaguration,  Sibley  called  upon 
President  Taylor  and  the  Secretary  of  State  and  submitted  to 
them  in  writing  an  appeal  that  the  offices  of  Secretary,  United 
States  Marshall,  and  Attorney  should  be  filled  with  men  from 
the  new  territory,  and  that  the  other  offices  be  filled  with  men 
from  the  Northwest.  Long  before  the  passage  of  the  act  creat- 
ing Minnesota,  aspirants  for  office  had  written  to  Sibley  to 
enlist  his  support  in  their  behalf.  Sibley  recommended  three 
Minnesota  Whigs  to  the  administration,  and  two  of  them  were 
appointed.  Henry  L.  Moss,  of  Stillwater,  was  appointed 
United  States  Attorney,  and  Joshua  L.  Taylor,  also  of  Still- 
water, was  named  Marshall,  an  appointment  which  he  declined. 
The  other  appointments  all  went  to  men  outside  of  Minnesota. 
The  governorship,  after  having  been  declined  by  two  other 
men,  was  accepted  by  Alexander  Ramsey,  an  ex-Congressman 
from  Pennsylvania.  Charles  K.  Smith,  of  Ohio,  became  Sec- 
retary. Aaron  Goodrich,  of  Tennessee,  was  appointed  Chief 
Justice  and  David  Cooper,  of  Maryland,  and  Bradley  B. 
Meeker,  of  Kentucky,  were  appointed  associate  justices  of  the 
territorial  court.  After  Joshua  L.  Taylor  declined  the  office  of 
Marshall,  Colonel  A.  M.  Mitchell,  of  Ohio,  was  appointed  to 
the  position.  Governor  Ramsey  arrived  in  the  Territory  on 
May  27,  and  issued  a  proclamation  declaring  the  territory  duly 
organized  from  and  after  June  1,  1849.43 

**  Minnesota  Pioneer y  May  31,  1849. 


CHAPTER  V 
TERRITORIAL  POLITICS,  1848-1852 

The  settlers  in  the  new  territory  were  slow  in  developing 
political  parties.  Most  of  the  fur  traders,  the  earliest  pioneers 
in  the  region,  had  never  been  identified  with  any  political 
party.  Many  of  them,  as  was  the  case  with  Sibley,  had  never 
lived  in  a  State  and,  therefore,  had  never  had  an  opportunity 
of  voting  in  elections  where  national  issues  were  involved.  The 
same  was  probably  true  of  many  of  the  pioneer  lumbermen  and 
even  of  some  of  the  pioneer  farmers.  Men  in  these  classes  of 
society  often  advanced  along  with  the  frontier,  leaving  one  of 
the  older  territories  before  its  admission  into  the  Union  as  a 
State  and  taking  up  their  residence  in  a  newer  region.  In  Min- 
nesota, however,  most  of  the  leaders  in  the  fur  trade  and  early 
lumbering  enterprises  remained  in  the  region  as  it  was  trans- 
formed from  a  wilderness  inhabited  by  Indians  to  a  settled  com- 
munity enjoying  political  organization.1  As  time  passed  by, 
other  classes  of  citizens  came  into  the  region  and  some  of  them 
came  from  the  States  where  they  had  participated  in  political 
activity. 

From  the  nature  of  conditions,  the  interests  of  pioneer 
settlers  were  local  in  character.  The  new  communities  were 
often  hundreds  of  miles  away  from  regions  of  compact  settle- 
ment. There  were  few,  if  any,  roads  leading  to  the  older  settle- 
ments, and  rivers  constituted  the  principal  highways  for 
communication  as  well  as  trade.  In  a  high  latitude  like  Minne- 
sota the  rivers  would  be  frozen  over  for  several  months  of  the 
year  and  the  inhabitants  deprived  of  even  this  means  of 
communication  with  the  outside  world. 

1 H.  H.  Sibley,  H.  M.  Rice,  David  Olmstead,  H.  L.  Dousman,  and  N.  W.  Kittson  all  came 
into  the  upper  Mississippi  country  as  fur  traders  and  all  of  them  remained  in  the  region  and 
played  prominent  parts  in  the  making  of  Minnesota.  Although  Dousman  lived  in  Wisconsin 
he  was  interested  in  the  affairs  of  Minnesota  Territory. 

6l 


6l  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

Even  after  territorial  organization  had  been  established,  the 
questions  confronting  the  settlers  were  local.  Since  their 
delegate  in  Congress  could  not  vote  they  had  no  voice  in  deter- 
mining national  policies.  Letters  and  newspapers  came  rarely 
and  irregularly  to  the  early  settlers  and  it  was  difficult  for  them 
to  know  what  was  happening  in  the  realm  of  national  politics. 
It  would  not  be,  therefore,  until  the  territory  was  well  advanced 
towards  statehood  and  men  other  than  fur  traders  and  pioneer 
lumbermen,  including  lawyers  and  newspaper  editors,  had  come 
in  that  real  party  organization  would  come  into  existence.  By 
1849  men  were  beginning  to  speak  of  themselves  as  Whigs  or 
Democrats,  in  some  instances,  especially  the  late  comers,  but 
party  organization  did  not  really  come  into  existence  for  some 
years  after  that  time.  Politics  were  personal  and  factional  and 
the  voters  of  the  territory  lined  up,  for  the  most  part,  with  one 
or  another  of  the  factions  irrespective  of  the  political  leanings 
of  the  leader. 

Since  the  territorial  appointments  for  Minnesota  had  been 
made  by  a  Whig  administration,  the  officers  were,  of  course, 
all  Whigs  and  the  territorial  administration  was  a  nucleus 
around  which  men  with  Whig  sympathies  rallied.  Most  of  the 
important  business  men  living  in  Minnesota  at  the  time  of  its 
organization  were,  or  were  to  be,  Democrats  and  a  majority  of 
the  people  in  the  territory  appear  to  have  had  Democratic 
leanings.2  This  was  probably  true  throughout  the  territorial 
period  or  at  least  until  the  organization  of  the  Republican  party 
drew  to  itself  many  men  who  had  previously  been  Democrats. 

Since  the  territory  was  dependent  upon  Congress  not  only 
for  appropriations  but  also  for  the  land  grants  which  the  in- 
habitants hoped  to  secure  for  public  purposes  in  the  territory 
and  since  the  settlers  would  need  the  assistance  of  friends  in 
both  political  parties  in  Congress  in  securing  such  aid,  it  seemed 
best  to  most  of  the  leaders  not  to  draw  strict  party  lines.  As 
time  went  by,  the  opponents  of  the  Whig  administration  in  the 

2  Ramsey  to  Hugh  Tyler,  Jan.  14,  1851,  in  Ramsey  Papers.  Also  Joseph  R.  Brown  to 
Sibley,  Jan.  30,  1850. 


TERRITORIAL  POLITICS,  1848-I852  63 

territory  gradually  grew  together  and  nominated  opposition 
tickets  for  members  of  the  territorial  legislature,  .but,  during 
the  period  1 849-1 852,  they  did  not  secure  control.  Fusion 
tickets  for  county  offices,  composed  of  about  equal  numbers  of 
Whigs  and  "neutral"  Democrats,  were  nominated  and  usually 
were  elected.  This  group  took  the  name  of  Territorial  party 
and  its  chief  purpose  was,  as  they  said,  to  work  only  for  the 
best  interests  of  the  territory.  The  opponents  of  this  group 
claimed  that  the  fusion  idea  was  a  clever  scheme  on  the  part  of 
the  Whig  minority  to  divide  the  Democrats  and  thus  control 
the  territorial  legislature.3 

The  two  principal  factions  in  the  politics  of  the  period  were 
the  Sibley  and  Rice  factions,  most  of  whose  followers  were,  or 
were  to  be,  Democrats.  It  was  the  Sibley  faction  which  usually 
fused  with  the  administration  Whigs.  So  bitter  was  the  hostil- 
ity between  Sibley  and  Rice  that  it  gave  color  to  the  politics  of 
the  entire  territorial  period  of  Minnesota  history.  Henry  M. 
Rice  was  at  one  time  a  member  of  the  fur  company  of  which 
Sibley  was  the  head  in  the  Northwest.  Business  differences 
arose  between  them  and  finally  led  to  personal  hostility  which 
was  carried  over  into  politics  and  became  the  basis  of  the 
Sibley  and  Rice  factions.4  It  is  difficult  for  the  citizen  of  today 
to  realize  fully  the  bitterness  of  this  controversy  and  the  far 
reaching  effects  it  had  on  territorial  politics. 

Fuel  was  continually  added  to  the  flames  of  personal  and 
factional  politics  by  the  newspapers  which  made  their  appear- 
ance in  Minnesota  in  1 849.  The  first  of  these  was  the  Minnesota 
Pioneer  of  which  James  M.  Goodhue  was  editor.  In  the  first 
issue,  which  appeared  April  28,  1849,  Goodhue  assumed  a  neu- 

s  W.  D.  Phillips  to  Sibley,  Feb.  i,  1849  (1850). 

4  The  final  break  between  the  two  men  seems  to  have  come  about  in  1848-49  over  the  title 
to  land  in  upper  St.  Paul.  Rice  had  acquired  land  there  and  was  selling  and  giving  away  lots 
to  his  followers.  The  fur  company  claimed  that  Rice  held  the  lands  simply  for  the  benefit  of  the 
company  as  Kittson  and  others  held  land  for  it,  and  brought  suit  to  recover  the  property, 
charging  Rice  with  fraud.  The  company  was  not  successful  in  the  suit,  but  the  feeling  of  bitter- 
ness spread  to  the  followers  of  Sibley  and  Rice  and  even  extended  "to  judges,  jurors  and  officials 
of  the  court,  as  well  as  to  the  legislature."  Gilfillan,  "Early  Political  History  of  Minnesota," 
in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  9:170. 


64  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

tral  position  in  politics  and  announced  that  his  newspaper 
would  support  neither  of  the  national  political  parties  while 
Minnesota  was  a  territory.  Goodhue  was  a  Democrat,  however 
and  the  Pioneer  was  recognized  as  the  organ  of  the  Democratic 
party  in  the  premature  attempt  at  organization  in  October, 

1 849.  As  the  fight  between  Sibley  and  Rice  became  more  bitter 
and  the  Rice  faction,  which  it  at  first  supported,  was  defeated 
in  the  election  in  November,  1849,  tne  Pioneer  lined  up  with 
the  Sibley  faction,  although  Goodhue  was  not  fully  trusted  by 
Sibley's  friends.5  The  second  newspaper  started  in  the  terri- 
tory was  the  Minnesota  Chronicle,  the  first  number  of  which 
was  issued  on  May  31,1 849.  This  was  a  Whig  paper  and  James 
Hughes  was  its  first  editor.  The  next  paper  to  appear,  the 
Minnesota  Register ,6  was  also  Whig.  Two  Whig  papers  were 
more  than  the  new  territory  could  support  and  they  were 
consolidated  in  August,  1849,  an<^  published  as  the  Chronicle  and 
Register  until  1851  when  this  paper  was  absorbed  by  the 
Democrat.    The  Minnesota  Democrat  was  started  in  December, 

1850,  in  the  interest  of  the  Rice  faction  with  Colonel  D.  A. 
Robinson  as  its  first  editor.  After  the  consolidation  of  the 
Chronicle  and  Register  with  the  Democrat  another  Whig  paper, 
the  Minnesotian,  made  its  appearance.  The  chief  competition 
between  these  newspapers  was,  of  course,  over  the  territorial 
printing.  Although  the  administration  was  Whig,  Goodhue 
succeeded  in  getting  his  share  of  the  printing  from  the  very 
first  and,  in  1851,  was  made  Territorial  Printer.  This  latter 
action  came  as  a  result  of  a  spirited  fight  in  the  territorial  legis- 
lature. The  Rice  influence  wanted  to  receive  at  least  a  share 
of  the  public  printing,  especially  after  gaining  control  of  the 

6  Goodhue  was  born  in  New  Hampshire  in  1 8 10.  After  graduating  at  Amherst,  he  studied 
law  and  practiced  for  a  time,  then  went  to  Wisconsin  Territory  and  edited  a  newspaper.  He 
came  to  Minnesota  as  soon  as  the  territory  was  organized.  He  died  in  1852.  Goodhue  was  a 
vigorous  writer  but  was  inclined  to  be  sensational  and  at  times  vindictive.  Minnesota  Historical 
Collections,  10:2. 

6  The  first  number  of  the  Register,  dated  April  27,  1849,  was  printed  in  Cincinnati  and  sent 
to  Minnesota  for  distribution.  Dr.  A.  Randall  was  then  the  editor.  He  sold  his  interest  in  the 
paper  to  Nathaniel  McLean  and  went  to  California  as  a  "forty-niner."  The  paper  was  then 
moved  to  St.  Paul  and  publication  was  resumed  in  July,  1849. 


TERRITORIAL  POLITICS,   1848-I852  65 

Chronicle  and  Register,  since  that  paper  was  openly  Whig. 
The  Sibley  faction  combined  with  certain  Whigs  in  the  terri- 
torial legislature  and  gave  the  contract  to  Goodhue.  This 
was  looked  upon,  therefore,  as  a  victory  for  Sibley  over  Rice.7 
These  newspapers  utilized  factional  politics  as  material  for  the 
editorial  columns  and  this,  together  with  their  own  fights  over 
the  territorial  printing,  added  to  the  bitterness  of  the  period. 

It  will  be  recalled  that  Rice  had  been  a  candidate  in  1848  in 
the  election  of  a  delegate  from  the  residuum  of  Wisconsin 
Territory.  Although  defeated  in  that  contest,  he  was  by  no 
means  ready  to  give  up  the  fight  against  Sibley.  He  did  not, 
in  fact,  become  an  active  candidate  for  delegate  again  until 
after  Sibley's  retirement  from  Congress,  probably  because  he 
did  not  consider  the  prospects  of  success  favorable  enough, 
but  his  friends  were  continually  trying  to  bring  about  Sibley's 
downfall.  Rice  was  a  skillful  politician  and  had  a  large  fol- 
lowing outside  the  fur  company  influence  and  was  very  popular 
with  a  large  number  of  people  in  Minnesota.  Rice  moved  to 
St.  Paul  after  Sibley  left  for  Washington  in  the  fall  of  1848  and 
began  building  up  a  personal  following  at  that  place.8  He  also 
had  important  business  interests  at  Crow  Wing  on  the  upper 
Mississippi.  On  December  1,  1848,  Joseph  R.  Brown  wrote  to 
Sibley  from  Crow  Wing  that  Sibley's  friends  there  were  greatly 
elated  over  his  election,  but  that  "war  to  the  knife  had  been 
declared  against  all  who  assisted  in  any  way  in  defeating  the 
'universal  favorite.'"  There  was  a  rumor  at  that  time  that  an 
effort  would  be  made  to  organize  the  Democratic  party  in 
Minnesota  with  the  view  of  favoring  Rice  against  Sibley.9 

7  "You  will  learn  by  this  mail,"  Ramsey  wrote  to  Sibley,  Jan.  14,  1851,  "of  the  election  of 
Goodhue  as  printer.  This  is  one  of  the  greatest  victories  that  your  friends  have  yet  achieved.  .  . 
At  the  opening  of  the  session  two  weeks  ago  I  very  much  feared  that  R.  would  get  the  advantage 
of  us,  but  recent  events  dissipate  that  fear.  Rice  since  the  election  of  Goodhue  they  say  is 
terribly  cast  down." 

8  Rice  opened  a  business  house  in  St.  Paul  in  the  fall  of  1848  and  spent  most  of  his  time 
there.  He  did  not  move  his  family  from  Mendota  until  June,  1849,  at  tne  time  tnat  Ramsey 
came  to  St.  Paul  from  his  stay  with  Sibley  at  Mendota.  Rice  and  Ramsey  descended  the  river 
together  in  two  large  bark  canoes  managed  by  voyageurs.    Minnesota  Chronicle,  June  28,  1849. 

9  Walker  to  Sibley,  Nov.  7,  1848. 


66  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

Sibley's  success  in  Washington  in  securing  territorial 
organization  gave  him  such  popularity  with  the  people  of 
Minnesota  that  no  candidate  opposed  him  for  election  as  the 
first  regular  delegate  from  the  new  territory.  A  plan  to  organize 
the  Democratic  party  had  been  carried  along  by  the  Rice 
faction,  but  the  time  was  not  ripe  to  bring  it  into  the  open.  The 
first  territorial  election  was  held  on  August  I,  1849,  and  the 
politicians  concerned  themselves  principally  with  candidates 
for  the  legislature.  On  the  surface,  party  lines  were  not  drawn 
and  the  leading  men  in  the  territory  declared  themselves  in 
favor  of  "neutrality"  in  politics,  but  the  different  factions  tried 
to  get  as  many  of  their  friends  elected  as  possible.  Both  Rice 
and  Sibley  were  active  in  the  campaign  for  members  of  the 
legislature.10 

The  Minnesota  Register  announced  Sibley's  election  in  the 
following  editorial:  "The  unanimous  voice  of  the  citizens  of  the 
territory,  by  which  Mr.  Sibley  is  called  to  represent  them  in 
Congress  is  a  meritorious  compliment  to  that  gentleman 
highly  creditable  to  our  people.  While  partisan  warfare  is 
raging  hot  and  fierce  in  the  States,  we  in  Minnesota  are  attend- 
ing to  our  own  business,  and  rewarding  our  best  men,  without 
regard  to  their  political  opinions.  This  is  as  it  should  be.  Let 
us  go  on  this  way  for  a  few  years,  and  Uncle  Sam  will  not  be 
unmindful  of  all  our  wants."11  The  Pioneer  did  not  mention 
Sibley's  election  until  August  23,  when  the  following  editorial 
appeared:  "The  Hon.  Mr.  Sibley  was  elected  delegate  to  Con- 
gress by  the  unanimous  voice  of  Minnesota.  As  he  was  the 
choice  of  the  whole  people,  without  the  least  opposition,  we 
almost  forgot  to  mention  that  he  was  elected." 

In  September,  1849,  tne  ^^ce  faction  decided  to  come  into 
the  open  with  the  plan  to  organize  the  Democratic  party  in 
Minnesota.  A  caucus  was  held  at  the  home  of  H.  M.  Rice  on 
Monday  evening,  September  24,  1849,  and  a  committee  was 

10  Rice  to  McKenny,  July  13,  1849;  and  G-  H-  Pond  t0  Sibley,  July  16,  1849,  Doth  in 
Sibley  Papers. 

11  Minnesota  Register ,  Aug.  4,  1849. 


TERRITORIAL  POLITICS,   1848-I852  6j 

appointed  to  call  a  mass  meeting  of  the  democracy  of  Minne- 
sota. This  committee  sent  out  the  following  call:  "Believing 
that  the  safety  and  integrity  of  our  party  and  the  paramount 
interests  of  our  infant  territory  demand  that  the  party  lines 
be  henceforth  drawn,  we  extend  a  cordial  invitation  to  our 
Democratic  brethern  in  all  parts  of  the  Territory  to  assemble  at 
St.  Paul  on  Saturday  the  20th  day  of  October,  to  take  measures 
to  secure  permanent  thorough  organization."12  This  meeting 
was  under  the  control  of  the  Rice  faction.  Some  Sibley  men 
were  named  on  the  different  committees,  but  the  majority  of 
the  most  important  committees  were  Rice  men.  The  resolu- 
tions reported  to  and  adopted  by  the  meeting  struck  hard  at 
the  policy  of  "neutrality"  in  territorial  politics.  Among  other 
things,  it  was  resolved  "That  we  have  no  confidence  in  the 
profession  of  those  who  raise  the  cry  of  political  neutrality  in 
the  Territory;  that  it  is  a  specious  and  artful  attempt  to  begile 
portions  of  the  stronger  party  into  the  support  of  men  and 
measures  emanating  wholly  from  the  weaker  one,  and  exclu- 
sively for  the  furtherance  of  partisan  purposes,  and  that  the  in- 
terests of  the  people  at  large  require  that  all  such  attempts  be 
thwarted  at  once,  which  can  only  be  effectually  done  by  prompt, 
decided,  and  united  action  by  the  Democracy  of  this  most 
beautiful  land."  The  resolutions  expressed  "undiminished  and 
abiding  confidence"  in  the  principles  of  Jefferson,  Madison, 
Monroe,  Jackson,  and  Polk,  and  stated  that  the  Democrats 
of  Minnesota  were  "opposed  to  a  national  bank,  to  a  protective 
tariff  as  such,  to  the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of 
public  lands,  to  a  latitudinary  construction  of  the  Constitution, 
and  to  the  abrogation  of  the  veto  power."  Another  resolution, 
offered  from  the  floor  and  adopted,  declared  "That  in  organizing 
the  Democratic  party  it  is  important  that  our  trusts  should 
not  be  placed  in  any  but  those  who  are  openly  and  unequivo- 
cally Democrats,  fearlessly  advocating  Democratic  principles 
at  all  times."  This  last  resolution  was  evidently  intended  to 
force  "neutral"  Democrats  into  the  organization. 

12  Minnesota  Pioneer,  Oct.  25,  1849. 


68  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

While  this  attempt  to  organize  the  Democratic  party  was 
premature,  it  did  have  momentous  consequences  for  Sibley  for 
it  was  at  this  meeting  that  his  affiliation  with  the  Democratic 
party  was  first  announced.  He  had  been  invited  to  attend  the 
meeting  but  was  unable  to  do  so,  he  said,  because  of  pressing 
business  engagements.  He  did,  however,  send  a  letter  which 
was  read  at  the  meeting.  In  this  letter  Sibley  stated  that  he 
had  hoped  that  party  lines  would  not  be  drawn  in  Minnesota, 
but,  since  they  "were  already  virtually  drawn,"  he  would 
avail  himself  of  this  opportunity  of  stating  his  individual  senti- 
ments. "I  am  a  Democrat  of  the  Jeffersonian  school,"  he  wrote, 
"and  as  such  I  stand  ready  at  all  proper  times  and  places  to 
take  my  place  under  the  banner  of  the  party.  It  is  especially 
proper  that  I  should  define  my  position  now,  as  a  false  state- 
ment has  been  circulated  about  that  I  was  a  Whig,  and  elected 
as  such."  He  stated,  however,  that,  since  he  had  been  elected 
without  reference  to  party,  he  would  preserve  his  previous 
neutrality  in  the  discharge  of  his  public  duties.13 

The  men  who  participated  in  this  meeting  seemed  to  believe 
that  they  had  put  an  end  to  neutrality  in  territorial  politics 
and  caused  the  following  notice  to  appear  in  the  next  issue  of 
the  Pioneer:  "Died  suddenly,  in  Minnesota,  on  the  20th  inst. 
at  9  o'clock  p.m.  the  Territorial  Party/  Disease,  delirium 
tremens,  induced  by  a  secret  habit  of  imbibing  Whig  spirits." 

This  organization  of  the  Democratic  party,  and  especially 
Sibley's  letter,  was  bitterly  denounced  by  the  Whig  members 
of  the  Territorial  party.  "On  Sunday  it  was  hazardous  to  run 
the  gauntlet  on  Third  Street,"  wrote  Goodhue  in  an  editorial 
in  the  Pioneer.  "The  Territorial  Party  are  awfully  flustered. 
The  letter  of  the  Hon.  Mr.  Sibley  to  the  Democratic  Conven- 
tion, announcing  himself  a  Jeffersonian  Democrat,  took  them 
raking  like  a  charge  of  duck  shot  from  a  French  shot  gun  dis- 
charged at  a  flock  of  wild  geese  in  a  fog.  Never,  in  our  opinion, 
did  a  party  sleep  under  a  mine  of  surer  destruction  than  that 
which  Federalism  had  prepared  in  Minnesota  for  the  Democ- 

13  Minnesota  Pioneer ;  Oct.  25,  1849. 


TERRITORIAL  POLITICS,   1848-I852 


69 


racy.  Long  may  it  be  before  the  party  of  human  hopes  and 
human  progress  here  shall  again  lie  down  in  dalliance  with 
Federalism."  The  attitude  of  the  Whigs  towards  Sibley  was 
well  shown  in  an  editorial  in  the  Chronicle  of  November  3: 
"Mr.  Sibley  has  a  perfect  right  to  form  and  express  his  own 
opinions  when  and  where  he  may  deem  proper.  He  was  elected, 
according  to  his  own  showing,  without  reference  to  party  poli- 
tics, and  has  graciously  promised  to  act  out  his  term  without 
politics.  After  that,  look  out,  the  Fur  will  fly.  Pending  the 
election,  so  far  as  the  subject  was  mooted,  he  was  claimed  by 
both.  Rushing  into  the  arena  at  this  particular  time,  without 
any  necessity,  we  think,  instead  of  increasing  his  influence  at 
home  or  in  Washington  will  have  a  most  decided  contrary 
effect."    This  prophecy  was  to  be  fulfilled. 


MINNESOTA  TERRITORY 
iiwiimo 

COUNTY  BCtlNQARlES  IN 
1849. 


The  first  territorial  legislature  was  in  session  from  September 
to  November,  1849,  and>  on  October  27,  enacted  a  law  creating 


7<D  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

nine  new  countries,  three  of  which  were  declared  to  be  fully 
organized.  These  countries  were  Washington,  Ramsey,  and 
Benton.14  This  law  provided  for  the  appointment  of  county 
officers  by  the  Governor  to  hold  office  until  a  regular  election 
could  be  held.  This  election  was  in  November,  1849,  and  gave 
the  first  opportunity  to  test  the  strength  of  the  recently  organ- 
ized Democratic  party.  The  next  move  on  the  part  of  Rice, 
was,  therefore,  to  put  a  Democratic  ticket,  composed  mostly 
of  his  followers,  into  the  field  in  Ramsey  County,  the  county- 
seat  of  which  was  St.  Paul.15  The  men  recently  appointed  by 
Governor  Ramsey  were  candidates  for  re-election,  and  some  of 
them  were  "neutral"  Democrats  who  had  belonged  to  the 
Territorial  party.  The  "organization"  Democrats  charged 
that  the  Whigs  had  secretly  organized  during  the  session  of  the 
legislature  and  by  that  action  had  forced  organization  upon 
the  Democrats. 

The  "organization"  Democrats  of  Ramsey  County  met  in 
convention  on  November  17  to  nominate  candidates  for  county 
offices.  The  Rice  faction,  by  calling  the  convention  to  order 
promptly  at  the  appointed  time  before  all  of  the  delegates  had 
arrived,  succeeded  in  nominating  its  slate.16  Goodhue  sup- 
ported this  ticket  through  the  columns  of  the  Pioneer,  but, 
in  spite  of  all  that  he  and  the  Rice  faction  could  do,  the  ticket 
was  badly  defeated.  The  followers  of  Sibley  did  not  support 
the  Rice  ticket  and  they,  together  with  the  Whigs,  succeeded 
in  electing,  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  the  appointees  of 
Governor  Ramsey.17 

14  Laves  of  Minnesota,  1849,  P-  9-    (See  accompanying  map  for  boundaries.) 

15  J.  R.  Brown  wrote  to  Sibley,  Dec.  21,  1849:  "The  object  then  was  to  ascertain  how  the 
clique  would  stand  with  the  people,  if  a  nomination  (of  Rice  for  delegate)  could  be  obtained 
hereafter." 

16  "It  was  a  pretty  smart  attempt,"  Henry  Lambert  wrote  to  Sibley,  Nov.  27,  "at  a  gag 
under  the  name  of  party  organization  to  sustain  the  R(ice)  influence.  A  few  met  at  the  ap- 
pointed time.  .  .  .  They  had  everything  their  own  way  and  when  Brown,  Rollins,  &  us  got 
there  they  had  little  else  to  do  than  to  look  on.    Naturally  they  felt  indignant." 

17  After  the  election,  W.  H.  Forbes  wrote  to  Sibley  giving  an  account  of  the  meeting  and 
campaign.  "You  have  heard  ere  this  the  result  of  our  county  election.  The  peoples'  ticket 
won  the  day  and  we  buried  on  that  day  I  trust  the  last  effort  of  that  Rice  faction.  .  .  .  They 
had  the  impudence  to  call  themselves  the  democratic  party.  I  walked  up  to  their  nominating 
convention  and  saw  87  votes  cast  when  there  was  not  sixty  persons  present  and  they  from  all 
parts  of  the  Territory." 


TERRITORIAL  POLITICS,   1848-I852  7 1 

The  Whigs  were  inclined  to  look  upon  this  election  as  a 
Whig  victory  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  there  was  no  open  organ- 
ization of  that  party  in  the  territory.  They  were  very  bitter 
against  Sibley  for  his  letter  of  October  20  and  gave  him  and 
his  friends  little  credit  for  the  victory.  The  seeds  which  were  to 
bear  fruit  in  the  campaign  of  1850  had  now  been  sown.  Sibley 
had  not  used  his  influence  in  favor  of  the  Democratic  ticket, 
and  thereby  caused  more  hostility  than  ever  between  himself 
and  Rice.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Whigs  had  denounced  him 
for  abandoning  neutrality.  Both  of  these  facts  were  to  have 
influence  when  Sibley  came  up  for  re-election  in  1850. 

Sibley  announced  his  intention  of  running  as  a  neutral 
candidate  in  a  letter  of  July  26,  1850,  to  Governor  Ramsey. 
"It  is  with  unaffected  reluctance,,,  he  wrote,  "that  I  consent 
to  run  again,  and  I  only  do  so  because  I  conscientiously  believe 
that  certain  parties  wish  to  gain  control  in  the  Territory  to 
effect  their  own  selfish  ends.  To  defeat  the  united  cliques  of 
Rice,  Mitchell,  the  Ewings,  and  others  of  a  like  stamp  I  will 
make  any  personal  sacrifice  of  my  own  comfort  and  inclina- 
tions. After  what  has  been  done  for  M.  (Minnesota)  at  this 
session,  in  the  face  of  every  opposing  influence  and  during  a 
period  when  nobody  else  has  accomplished  anything,  it  would 
seem  strange  indeed  if  the  people  should  decide  against  me  in 
September/'  Sibley  hoped  that  Mitchell  would  be  the  candi- 
date against  him.  He  wanted  to  come  to  Minnesota  during 
the  campaign  but  feared  that  he  would  be  unable  to  do  so 
because  important  measures  were  still  pending  in  Congress 
which  needed  his  constant  attention. 

Colonel  A.  M.  Mitchell,  the  Whig  Marshall  of  the  Territory 
was  nominated  by  a  convention  which  called  itself  the  Terri- 
torial party,  on  July  31,  1850.  This  convention  seems  to  have 
been  called  as  a  Whig  convention  and  was  to  have  been  com- 
posed of  delegates  from  the  organized  counties  of  Washington, 
Ramsey,  and  Benton.  Apparently  the  Mitchell  forces  were 
not  willing  to  abide  by  the  probable  action  of  the  convention 
as  it  would  have  been  composed  with  the  delegates  chosen  by 


72  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

the  Whigs.  The  Mitchell  followers,  together  with  the  Rice 
faction  among  the  Democrats,  hurriedly  elected  twelve  dele- 
gates to  the  convention  which  met  the  same  night  and,  assisted 
by  the  anti-fur-company  delegation  from  St.  Anthony,  nomi- 
nated Mitchell.  The  majority  of  the  St.  Croix  delegation  and 
the  delegates  from  the  prairie  section  refused  to  go  into  the 
convention  when  they  saw  how  things  were  going,  and  many  of 
the  leading  Whigs  announced  that  they  would  not  support 
Mitchell.  Even  Furber,  who  had  been  so  bitter  against  Sibley, 
announced  that  he  would  support  Sibley  before  he  would 
Mitchell.18 

This  convention  which  nominated  Mitchell  made  the 
American  Fur  Company  a  leading  issue  in  the  campaign.  A 
resolution  adopted  by  the  convention  declared  "That  we  have 
in  our  midst  a  dangerous  monopoly  known  as  the  'American 
Fur  Company/  wielding  a  powerful  influence,  injurious  to  and 
destructive  of  the  community  at  large,  prepared  by  any  means 
to  retain  their  baneful  influences  at  the  sacrifice  of  the  welfare 
and  independence  of  our  people;  and  we  do  therefore  pledge 
ourselves,  and  call  upon  our  constituents  to  assist  in  checking 
its  power."19  A  letter  was  sent  to  Mitchell  notifying  him  of 
his  nomination  and  he  replied  immediately  accepting  it. 

Sibley's  friends  recognized  that  the  union  between  the  Rice 
and  Mitchell  factions  was  a  formidable  combination  and  that 
it  would  require  a  hard  fight  to  defeat  it.20  Sibley's  candidacy 
was  publicly  announced  in  the  Pioneer  of  August  8,  1850. 
Goodhue  had  not  yet  abandoned  the  Democratic  organization, 
and  he  simply  announced  that  he  had  been  requested  to  say 
that  Sibley  would  be  a  candidate.  He  regretted,  he  said,  that 
party  lines  would  probably  not  be  drawn  during  the  campaign 
and  that,  in  the  absence  of  party  issues,  politics  would  be  per- 
sonal and  factional  and  were  certain  to  be  bitter.    "Weorgan- 

18  Potts  to  Sibley,  Aug.  i,  1850. 

19  Minnesota  Pioneer,  Aug.  8,  1850. 

20  Ramsey  to  Sibley,  Aug.  6,  1850.  Ramsey  wrote:  "Mitchell  has  become  a  candidate 
with,  to  my  surprise,  great  prospects  of  succese." 


TERRITORIAL  POLITICS,   1848-I852  73 

ized,"  he  wrote,  "neither  a  Sibley  party  nor  a  Rice  party,  but 
the  Democratic  Party."  He  called  upon  the  Democratic  com- 
mittee to  call  a  convention  and  gave  notice  that,  if  they  did 
not  do  so  within  a  week,  he  would  "feel  at  liberty  to  nominate 
a  good,  staunch,  unflinching  Democrat. "  "In  regard  to  the 
mongrel  nomination  already  made,"  he  continued,  "we  have 
no  sympathy  with  it  or  with  any  that  may  be  made  in  immi- 
tation  of  it.  We  recognize  no  distinctions  based  upon  pelfry, 
and  have  nothing  to  do  with  their  contests." 

No  satisfactory  call  was  issued  by  the  Democratic  commit- 
tee, and  Goodhue,  in  an  editorial  of  two  and  one  half  columns 
in  the  Pioneer  of  August  15,  came  out  strongly  for  Sibley  whose 
name  was  placed  at  the  head  of  the  editorial  with  the  sub- 
heading, "An  honest  man  is  the  noblest  work  of  God."  Good- 
hue gave  a  resume  of  Sibley's  work  in  Washington,  stating 
that  Sibley  was  "the  man  by  whose  agency  Minnesota  was 
quarried  and  hewn  into  an  organized  territory."  Sibley's 
reliability  and  his  standing  in  the  community,  before  the  fight 
against  him  was  begun,  were  emphasized,  and  the  people  of 
Minnesota  were  urged  to  "Hold  fast  to  that  which  is  true,  tried, 
and  valuable.  Do  not  exchange  a  delegate  for  a  chance  of  a 
delegate.    Be  deliberate  and  honest;  be  wise  and  not  fools." 

A  group  of  Whigs  met  in  convention  at  Stillwater  on  August 
10,  1850,  and  nominated  Colonel  N.  Greene  Wilcox  for  dele- 
gate. This  was  the  nearest  that  the  Whigs  came  to  organizing 
that  party  throughout  the  territory  during  the  period  under 
consideration.21  It  was  not  successful,  however,  and,  on 
August  18,  Wilcox  declined  the  nomination  and  announced  that 
he  favored  the  candidacy  of  Mitchell. 

Still  another  nomination  was  made.  On  August  10,  David 
Olmstead  was  nominated  by  a  convention  in  St.  Paul.  This 
meeting  approved  the  administration  of  Governor  Ramsey, 
probably  hoping  for  the  support  of  the  territorial  administra- 
tion, although  Olmstead  himself  was  a  Democrat.  The  Chroni- 
cle and  Register  approved  Olmstead's  nomination.    "For  moral 

21  Minnesota  Pioneer,  Aug.  15,  1850.    Also  Chronicle  and  Register,  Aug.  12,  1850. 


74  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

worth,  ability,  and  long  tried  integrity/'  the  editorial  stated, 
"he  (Olmstead)  has  no  superior  in  the  Territory,  and  if  his 
friends  do  their  duty  he  will  be  elected."22 

The  campaign  resolved  itself,  therefore,  into  a  three- 
cornered  fight  between  factions.  Sibley  was  unmercifully  de- 
nounced for  his  connection  with  the  fur  company.  It  has  been 
said  of  this  campaign  that  the  real  issue  was  "Fur  versus  anti- 
fur."  Much  was  said  during  the  campaign  about  the  "Dan- 
gerous monopoly"  and  its  "baneful  influence"  in  the  new 
territory.  This  argument,  if  such  it  may  be  called,  was  ably 
answered  through  the  columns  of  the  Pioneer.  In  an  article  of 
two  and  one-half  columns,  signed  by  "A  Whig,"  it  was  denied 
that  the  fur  company  was  a  monopoly,  and  it  was  even  defended 
as  being  a  good  thing  for  the  territory.  "If  there  was  a  hundred 
fur  companies  in  the  territory,"  said  the  article,  "so  much  the 
better.  I  am  sorry  to  see  this  hue  and  cry  against  monopolies 
raised  here  in  Minnesota.  Those  who  have  raised  it,  and  who 
join  in  it,  cannot  be  aware  of  the  origin  of  the  course  they  are 
pursuing.  Monopolies  have  ever  been  the  theme  of  demagogues 
and  unprincipled  men  in  all  past  time.  The  truth  is,  and  there 
is  no  disguising  the  fact :,  this  cry  against  monopolies  is  a  pitiful 
humbug,  originating  with  the  wicked  to  impose  on  the  ignorant. 
The  disappointments  of  a  few,  the  ambitions  of  some,  and  the 
prejudices  of  others,  are  put  together;  a  little  froth  is  made 
about  election  times;  it  serves  its  purpose  and  then  sinks  to 
nothing,  whence  it  came,  and  there  is  no  more  of  it  till  another 
election."23 

The  same  line  of  argument  was  followed  in  an  editorial  of 
one  and  one-half  columns  in  the  Pioneer  of  August  22.  Goodhue 
gave  an  account  of  fur  company  methods  in  Minnesota  and 
denied  that  the  fur  company  with  which  Sibley  was  connected 
was  a  monopoly,  since  anyone  who  could  take  out  a  license 
could  take  part  in  the  fur  trade.    "Unmasked,"  he  wrote,  "it 

22  Chronicle  and  Register,  Aug.  12,  1850. 

23  Minnesota  Pioneer,  Aug.  15,  1850. 


TERRITORIAL  POLITICS,  1848-I852  75 

(the  cry  against  monoplies)  is  nothing  more  or  less  than  an 
attempt  to  array  labor  against  capital.  It  seeks  to  stir  up 
envy.  It  is  an  old  trick  of  demagogues  attempted  in  a  new 
Territory." 

The  friends  of  Olmstead  denounced  Goodhue  for  not  sup- 
porting what  they  were  pleased  to  call  the  Democratic  candi- 
date. Goodhue  defended  himself  and  Sibley  in  an  able  editorial 
of  August  22.  He  affirmed  that  Sibley  had  been  announced  as 
a  candidate  before  the  meeting  of  the  convention  that  had 
nominated  Olmstead  and  that  Sibley  "had  never  pledged  him- 
self to  be  tricked  out  of  office  by  any  sliding  under  of  cards  or 
the  dextrous  turning  up  of  Jack";  Goodhue  declared  that  the 
convention  itself  "was  all  arranged  expressly  for  Mr.  Olmstead. 
The  notices  were  printed,  the  wires  laid,  and  the  whole  scheme 
concocted  before  Mr.  Sibley's  friends  had  any  notice  of  it. 
Was  Mr.  Sibley  to  be  led  into  this  palpable  trap  ?  If  our  friends 
in  Washington  county  had  not  been  shamefully  duped  in  this 
business,  Mr.  Olmstead  would  never  have  been  thrust  up  as  a 
candidate;  he  won't  know  after  election  that  he  was  a  candi- 
date, without  reference  to  the  poll-books,  under  the  head ^'Scat- 
tering."24 

As  the  campaign  progressed  it  became  evident  that  the 
chief  issue  was  "anything  to  beat  Sibley."  A  conference  was 
arranged  between  the  Olmstead  and  Mitchell  forces  and  Olm- 
stead was  induced  to  withdraw  from  the  contest.  He  seems  to 
have  done  this  against  the  advice  of  some  of  his  most  influential 
friends.  Joseph  R.  Brown,  although  a  personal  friend  of  Sibley, 
was  supporting  Olmstead  because  he  was  running  as  a  Demo- 
crat. He  urged  Olmstead  to  stay  in  the  race,  believing,  so  he 
wrote  to  Sibley,  that  Olmstead  would  get  votes  in  Benton 
county  which  would  otherwise  go  to  Mitchell.25  The  Chronicle 
and  Register,  which  had  supported  Olmstead,  also  opposed  his 
withdrawal.  It  accused  the  Sibley  faction  of  treachery  in  that 
they  had  promised,  so  it  was  claimed,  to  enter  the  "Democratic" 

24  Minnesota  Pioneer,  Aug.  22,  1850. 

25  J.  R.  Brown  to  Sibley,  Aug.  28,  1850. 


76  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

convention  which  nominated  Olmstead.  "The  faithless  course 
pursued  by  these  gentlemen,"  said  the  editorial,  "in  bolting 
the  nomination  when  it  was  ascertained  that  their  personal 
preferences  could  not  be  gratified,  and  the  boasts  subsequently 
so  often  repeated,  that  with  two  candidates  in  the  field  to 
divide  the  American  vote,  they  could  with  their  French  vote 
elect  Mr.  Sibley,  were  undoubtedly  the  causes  which  deter- 
mined Mr.  Olmstead  in  withdrawing/'26 

Sibley  remained  in  Washington  during  the  campaign,  but 
he  kept  in  touch  with  the  course  of  events  in  Minnesota. 
Governor  Ramsey  wrote  to  him  often  and  kept  him  informed 
in  regard  to  political  conditions  at  home.  The  election  was 
held  on  September  2,  1850,  and,  as  was  to  be  expected  after 
such  an  exciting  campaign,  did  not  pass  off  without  some  dis- 
order. Joseph  R.  Brown  wrote  to  Sibley  that  there  had  been 
many  attempts  to  buy  votes  and  to  intimidate  voters,  especially 
in  the  "upper  town"  of  St.  Paul  and  with  the  French  Canadi- 
ans, among  whom  a  circular  had  been  scattered  broadcast 
charging  that  Sibley  had  sacrificed  their  claims  in  the  Military 
Reserve  to  his  own  advantage  and  to  the  advantage  of  the  fur 
company.27  Goodhue  gave  the  following  account  of  the  election 
in  an  editorial  in  the  Pioneer  of  September  2 :  "Never  before  have 
we  witnessed  an  election,  as  hotly  contested  as  our  election  last 
Monday.  If  an  empire  had  been  at  stake,  more  zeal,  more 
influence,  more  active,  unscrupulous  means  and  more  inde- 
fatigable exertions  could  not  have  been  called  into  existence. 
Hope,  fear,  avarice,  ambition,  personal  obligations,  money, 
whiskey,  oysters,  patronage,  contracts,  champaign,  loans, 
the  promise  of  favors,  jealousy,  personal  prejudice,  envy, 
everything  that  could  be  tortured  into  a  motive  has  been 
pressed  into  the  canvass.  Mr.  Sibley  was  absent  in  Washing- 
ton.    This  was  a  great  disadvantage  to  him  in  an  election, 

26  Chronicle  and  Register,  Sept.  2,  1850.  No  evidence  has  been  found  of  such  statements 
having  been  made  during  the  campaign  by  Sibley's  friends.  Good  politicians  would  not  openly 
talk  that  way.  The  French  vote  was  for  Sibley,  however,  and  two  opposing  candidates  would 
have  favored  him. 

27  Brown  to  Sibley,  Sept.  4,  1850. 


TERRITORIAL  POLITICS,   1848-I852  77 

turning  as  it  did,  so  much  upon  personal  preference.  Any  other 
man  in  Minnesota,  being  a  candidate,  and  distant  hundreds 
of  miles  from  the  canvass,  would  have  been  signally  defeated. 
Colonel  Mitchell  and  Captain  Olmstead  were  both  here,  ac- 
tively electioneering;  as  well  as  Mr.  H.  M.  Rice,  a  man  of  un- 
limited energy  and  great  resources.  .  .  .  Bets  amounting  to 
hundreds  of  dollars  were  made;  and  much  larger  sums  would 
have  been  bet,  if  the  Winnebago  payment  had  not  been  delayed. 
Both  sides  were  willing  to  bet  anything,  to  the  last  shirt.  One 
of  Mitchell's  friends  wore  his  bosom-pin  stuck,  not  in  his  shirt 
bosom,  but  into  the  flesh  upon  his  breast;  and  would  have  bet 
off  the  pin  itself,  upon  the  slightest  banter.  We  desire  never 
to  see  another  election,  so  wicked  and  corrupt;  but  whenever 
men  attempt  to  elevate  a  man  to  office  by  corrupting  the  foun- 
tains of  popular  will,  we  only  ask  to  see  him  as  signally  defeated 
as  Colonel  Mitchell  has  been  by  the  untied  exertions  of  good 
men  of  all  parties/' 

The  factional  fights  in  Minnesota  continued  during  most  of 
the  territorial  period.  This  was  particularly  true  in  the  terri- 
torial legislature  in  the  session  of  1851.  The  factions  were 
almost  evenly  divided  and  a  sharp  contest  took  place  before 
organization  was  effected.  "It  is  said  in  the  Council,"  William 
Holcombe  wrote  to  Sibley  on  January  8,  1851,  "that  before 
the  President  (of  the  Council)  was  elected,  the  Capitol  was 
located,  the  Penitentiary  was  located,  the  Public  Printing  dis- 
posed of,  and  all  the  minor  offices  down  even  to  firemen." 
This  was  the  time  when  Goodhue  was  made  Territorial  Printer, 
as  related  in  a  former  connection. 

As  time  passed  by,  it  appeared  that  Rice  was  gaining 
strength.  "There  is  no  use  denying  the  fact,"  John  H.  Stevens 
wrote  to  Sibley,  "that  most  of  the  new  comers  are  Rice  men. 
He  can  feed  them  on  promises,  by  which  course  he  can  make 
more  than  by  paying  ready  cash  down.  Now  the  question 
arises  what  course  shall  we  take  to  secure  the  emigrant  vote?" 
The  feeling  also  became  stronger  that  the  Democrats  should 
lay  aside  their  factional  fights  and  effect  a  real  organization. 


78  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

Friends  of  both  Sibley  and  Rice  tried  to  bring  about  a  recon- 
ciliation between  them  and  succeeded  to  some  extent  in  doing 
so.28  Sibley  retired  from  Congress  at  the  expiration  of  his 
term,  and  Rice  was  elected  to  succeed  him.  Sibley's  greatest 
strength  during  this  period  seems  to  have  been  due  to  the  fur 
company  influence.  As  conducted  by  Sibley,  the  fur  company's 
methods  were  popular  with  the  early  settlers,  many  of  whom 
Sibley  had  befriended  at  different  times.  The  company  had 
been  considerably  discredited,  however,  while  Sibley  was  in 
Washington,29  and  the  fight  between  Sibley  and  Rice,  which 
was  after  all  largely  a  fight  between  rival  trading  interests,  had 
brought  it  into  an  unfavorable  light.  With  the  increase  of 
population,  the  new  comers  were  acquainted  with  the  company 
methods  only  as  conducted  by  Dr.  C.  W.  Borup,  who  was  in 
charge  while  Sibley  was  in  Washington,  and  they  were  naturally 
prejudiced  against  it.  When  they  outnumbered  the  early 
settlers,  Sibley  lost  his  great  influence  in  the  territory.  The 
high  tide  of  Sibley's  popularity  during  the  period  of  his  congres- 
sional career  was  in  1849  when  he  returned  with  territorial 
organization  and  while  his  politics  were  yet  unknown.  His  in- 
fluence then  waned  until  he  closed  up  his  connection  with  the 
fur  company,  which  he  did  soon  after  the  expiration  of  his 
term  in  Congress.  His  retirement  to  private  life  was  not  per- 
manent, however,  and  greater  honors,  both  civil  and  military, 
were  in  store  for  him* 

28  Rice  to  Sibley,  Feb.  3,  1853. 

29  Potts  to  Sibley,  April  17,  1850;  John  H.  Stevens  to  Sibley,  May  22,  1850;  and  N.  W. 
Kittson  to  Fred  Sibley,  Aug.  12,  1850,  all  in  Sibley  Papers. 


CHAPTER  VI 
THE  NEEDS  OF  A  NEW  TERRITORY 

Providing  territorial  organization  was  only  the  beginning 
of  federal  legislation  in  behalf  of  the  inhabitants  of  a  frontier 
region.  The  people  of  Minnesota  wanted  better  postal  service, 
appropriations  or  land  grants  for  public  buildings,  roads, 
schools,  a  university,  and  even  telegraph  lines  and  railroads. 
Indian  treaties  for  the  cession  of  land  for  settlement  by  the 
rapidly  increasing  population  and  to  attract  a  still  larger  immi- 
gration were  ardently  desired.  On  all  of  these  measures  Sibley 
worked  with  the  same  energy  and  skill  as  had  characterized 
his  efforts  to  secure  territorial  organization  during  the  pre- 
ceding session  of  Congress,  and  he  faced  even  greater  difficul- 
ties in  their  accomplishment. 

The  slavery  question  was  being  agitated  more  bitterly 
than  ever  before  and  claimed  more  time  and  attention  on  the 
part  of  Congress.  This  struggle  began  on  the  first  day  of  the 
session  over  the  organization  of  the  House,  where  no  party  had 
a  majority.  There  were  112  Democrats,  105  Whigs,  and  13 
Free-Soilers.  The  latter,  therefore,  held  the  balance  of  power 
and  could  prevent  or  delay  the  organization  of  the  House. 
This  they  proceeded  to  do  and  it  was  not  until  December  22, 
1849,  and  on  the  sixty-third  roll-call,  that  a  Speaker  was  chosen 
and  this  was  accomplished  by  a  plurality  rather  than  a  majority 
vote.1  It  required  about  another  month  before  the  House  was 
completely  organized  and  ready  for  the  transaction  of  business. 
By  this  time  both  sides  to  the  slavery  controversy  were  fully 
aroused  and  the  discussions  which  finally  led  to  the  Compromise 
of  1850  were  well  under  way.  It  was  evident,  therefore,  that 
it  would  be  very  difficult  to  get  the  attention  of  Congress  for 

1  Congressional  Globe,  31  Cong.  1  Sess.,  p.  66. 

79 


80  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

the  consideration  of  measures  desired  by  an  infant  territory 
on  the  northwestern  frontier. 

Provision  had  been  made  in  the  appropriation  to  carry 
the  Minnesota  Act  into  effect,  passed  during  the  last  hours  of 
the  preceeding  session,  for  the  establishment  of  a  temporary 
capital  at  St.  Paul,  including  money  for  the  erection  of  tempo- 
rary buildings.  No  provision  was  made,  however,  for  a  peni- 
tentiary, an  institution  of  vital  importance  to  a  new  territory. 
There  was  no  place  within  the  limits  of  Minnesota  for  the  con- 
finement of  criminals.  The  military  authorities  at  Fort  Snelling 
consented  to  receive  and  confine  criminals  as  a  temporary 
expedient,2  but  they  were  not  required  to  do  so  and  the  people 
of  Minnesota  were  greatly  concerned  for  an  appropriation  to 
enable  them  to  care  for  criminals  in  a  proper  institution.  Inci- 
dentally, too,  it  would  help  satisfy  one  of  the  new  towns  in  the 
territory  if  the  penitentiary  could  be  secured  for  it,  in  return 
for  the  capital  being  elsewhere.  Sibley  secured  an  appropriation 
of  #20,000  for  the  erection  of  a  penitentiary.  He  encountered 
some  opposition  from  the  "ultra-strict  constructionists,"  but, 
as  he  wrote,  he  had  "paved  the  way  for  success  by  long  and 
persevering  electioneering  previously."3 

Another  matter  of  considerable  importance  to  Minnesota 
was  the  adequate  codification  of  the  law  applicable  within  its 
limits.  The  first  territorial  legislature  had  made  provision  for 
the  application  of  the  Wisconsin  code  of  laws  until  and  except  as 
the  same  should  be  amended  or  repealed  by  the  Minnesota 
legislature.  Since  there  was  not  sufficient  time  during  the 
sixty  day  session  to  prepare  a  full  code,  Congress  was  memori- 
alized for  permission  to  extend  the  next  session  of  the  territorial 
legislature  to  ninety  days.  Sibley  finally  secured  the  passage 
of  such  a  bill  and  the  laws  were  properly  codified  in  1851.4 

2  Ramsey  to  Sibley,  March  31,  1850. 

3  Sibley  to  Ramsey,  May  30,  1850,  in  Ramsey  Papers.  Also  Congressional  Globe,  31  Cong. 
1  Sess.,  1074, 1080, 1 169.  Additonal  appropriations  were  secured  at  the  next  session  to  complete 
the  buildings.  Congressional  Globe,  32  Cong.  1  Sess.,  102.  During  the  five  sessions  of  Sibley's 
Congressional  career  some  $285,673.43  were  appropriated  for  Minnesota. 

4  Congressional  Globe,  31  Cong.  1  Sess.,  983,  1016,  1206,  1376. 


NEEDS  OF  A  NEW  TERRITORY  8  I 

On  January  3,  1850,  Sibley  gave  notice  of  his  intention  to 
introduce  certain  bills  for  the  benefit  of  Minnesota  Territory, 
dealing  chiefly  with  the  establishment  of  post-roads.  The  sub- 
ject of  communication  with  the  outside  world  was  of  vital 
concern  to  the  people  of  Minnesota  and  most  of  the  letters  to 
Sibley  during  this  period  contained  references  to,  or  definite 
suggestions  regarding,  the  laying  out  of  post-roads  and  the 
securing  of  more  frequent  mail  service.  The  territorial  legis- 
lature memorialized  Congress  on  the  subject  and  the  memorial 
had  been  presented  by  Sibley.  The  population  was  rapidly 
increasing  and  the  people  believed  that  they  were  entitled  to 
more  frequent  and  more  regular  service.  The  Post  Office 
Department,  on  the  other  hand,  thought  that  the  receipts  of 
the  post  offices  in  Minnesota  were  not  sufficient  to  warrant 
the  increased  expenditure.5  On  February  12,  1850,  Sibley 
wrote  to  the  Postmaster  General  urging  additional  mails  and 
on  February  28,  he  was  informed  that  the  postmaster 
at  Galena,  as  well  as  the  one  at  St.  Paul,  had  been  directed  to 
send  mail  on  packet  boats  as  often  as  they  should  run.  The 
postage  was  to  be  two  cents  for  each  letter  and  one  cent  for 
each  newspaper  and  was  to  be  paid  by  the  postmaster  receiving 
the  mail  from  the  boat.  The  contractor  on  the  mail  route 
between  St.  Paul  and  Stillwater  was  directed  to  run  one  addi- 
tional weekly  trip  over  the  route.6  Not  only  was  more  frequent 
service  wanted  but  there  was  a  strong  demand  for  additional 
routes  to  reach  the  settlements  not  already  served.  Conse- 
quently, on  February  6,  1850,  Sibley  introduced  a  resolution 
instructing  the  Committee  on  Post  Roads  "to  inquire  into  the 
expediency  of  establishing  a  route  from  Point  Douglas,  via 
Cottage  Grove,  Red  Rock,  St.  Paul,  and  the  Falls  of  St. 
Anthony,  to  Fort  Gaines;  and  also  to  Long  Prairie  and  Pem- 
bina; and  from  Point  Douglas,  via  Stillwater,  Marine  Mills, 


5  The  First  Assistant  Postmaster  General  wrote  to  Sibley,  Feb.  3,  1850,  declining  to 
additional  service  because  of  excess  of  cost  over  receipts. 

8  Minnnesota  Pioneer,  April  2,  1850.  Chronicle  and  Register,  April  6,  1850.  The  latter 
paper  announced  this  as  "the  best  news  of  the  season." 


82  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

Falls  of  St.  Croix,  and  Pockegowa,  to  Fon  du  Lac."  Closely 
associated  with  this  question  was  the  construction  of  roads  to 
and  in  Minnesota.  These  were  intended  to  facilitate  the 
transportation  of  the  mails,  the  movement  of  troops  and  mili- 
tary supplies,  and  to  stimulate  materially  immigration  to  the 
territory.  Some  roads  were  constructed,  of  course,  by  the 
territory  but,  since  its  revenues  were  necessarily  limited,  the 
settlers  believed  that  Congress  should  give  assistance.  The 
newspapers  of  the  territory  agitated  the  question  and  petitions 
and  memorials  were  sent  to  Congress  asking  for  appropriations 
for  this  purpose.7  It  was  believed  that  a  more  direct  route 
could  be  followed  between  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  and  save 
many  miles  of  travel  between  the  two  places.  It  was  reported 
that  fairly  good  roads  had  been  built  from  eastern  Wisconsin 
as  far  as  Stevens  Point  and,  although  no  survey  had  been  made, 
it  was  believed  that  the  gap  between  these  roads  and  Minnesota 
was  not  over  175  miles  and  that  a  road  could  be  constructed 
for  $5,000. 8  Sibley  introduced  a  bill  providing  for  the  con- 
struction of  five  roads  in  Minnesota  and  carrying  appropria- 
tions for  $40,000.  These  roads  were  to  follow  the  plans  for  the 
post  roads,  mentioned  above,  or  very  nearly  so,  and  they  were 
to  be  constructed  "under  the  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  War, 
pursuant  to  contracts  made  by  him."9  Although  the  bill  was 
the  occasion  for  a  lengthy  debate  over  internal  improvements, 
it  was  finally  passed.10  As  usual  in  such  cases  the  original  esti- 
mate of  the  cost  of  construction  fell  short  of  the  actual  cost  and 
further  appropriations  were  necessary  in  order  to  complete  the 
work. 

Closely  associated  with  the  construction  of  roads  was  the 
question  of  the  improvement  of  the  Mississippi  river  as  a 

7  "Is  Congress  aware,"  Goodhue  wrote  in  an  editorial,  "that  the  road  up  the  river  from 
St.  Paul,  for  more  than  ioo  miles,  is  absolutely  thronged  with  travel,  even  now,  in  the  dead  of 
winter?"    Pioneer,  Jan.  2,  1850,  p.  2. 

8  It  was  expected  that  such  a  road  would  greatly  stimulate  immigration.  "As  the  public 
lands  are  mostly  taken  up  in  this  part  of  Wisconsin,  attention  is  directed  towards  Minnesota 
and  if  a  good  route  could  be  opened  to  the  Territory,  there  would  be  a  large  emigration  of  eastern 
people  within  the  next  two  years."    Henning  to  Sibley,  March  26,  1850. 

9  Congressional  Globe,  31  Cong.  1  Sess.,  1089. 

19  Congressional  Globe,  31  Cong.  I  Sess.,  814;  32  Cong.  2  Sess.,  610. 


NEEDS  OF  A  NEW  TERRITORY  83 

highway  of  trade  and  communication.  As  early  as  1850,  the 
settlers  petitioned  Congress  for  appropriations  for  the  survey 
of  the  Mississippi  above  the  Falls  of  St.  Anthony  with  a  view 
to  its  improvement,  and  during  the  following  session  of  Con- 
gress they  petitioned  for  an  appropriation  of  $10,000  to  remove 
obstructions  in  the  navigation  of  the  river  between  Fort 
Snelling  and  St.  Anthony  Falls.  Sibley's  efforts  in  behalf  of 
these  measures  were  not  rewarded  with  success  and  the  attempt 
to  make  St.  Anthony  Falls  the  head  of  navigation  on  the  Missis- 
sippi was  left  to  a  later  generation.11 

The  settlers  in  Minnesota  also  attempted  to  secure  appro- 
priations or  land  grants  for  the  construction  of  a  telegraph  line 
from  St.  Paul  to  Prairie  du  Chien  and  also  for  the  construction 
of  railroads.  They  not  only  wanted  railroads  to  establish 
connections  with  the  East  but  these  pioneers  along  the  upper 
Mississippi  filled  with  the  enthusiasm  and  optimism  charac- 
teristic of  the  frontier  were,  as  early  as  1850,  dreaming  and 
seeing  visions  of  a  railroad  to  the  Pacific.  It  was  at  this  time 
that  California  was  admitted  into  the  Union  and  plans  were 
being  made  to  construct  a  line  across  the  plains  and  over  the 
mountains  to  bring  her  nearer  in  point  of  time  to  her  sister 
States.  Sibley  had  been  interested  in  a  Pacific  railroad  since 
1849  when  he  had  been  invited  to  attend  a  national  convention 
in  St.  Louis  "to  deliberate  upon  the  expediency  and  necessity 
of  connecting,  at  an  early  date,  the  Pacific  with  the  Mississippi 
valley,  by  means  of  a  railroad  and  magnetic  telegraph."12 
Goodhue,  at  different  times  during  1850,  advocated  the  con- 
struction of  a  Pacific  railroad  and  argued  in  favor  of  making 
St.  Paul  the  eastern  terminus.  He  pointed  out  that  the  dis- 
tance from  St.  Paul  to  the  Pacific  was  shorter  than  from  St. 
Louis  to  San  Francisco  and  that  it  would  be  far  easier  and  safer 
to  build  the  road  westward  from  Minnesota.     He  favored 

11  The  problem  was  not  really  solved  until  the  completion  of  the  high  dam  near  Fort 
Snelling  in  1917  which  finally  makes  possible  the  realization  of  the  dream  of  the  early  pioneers, 
although  as  yet  there  is  very  little  use  made  of  the  municipal  pier  at  Minneapolis. 

12  A  printed  invitation  to  Sibley,  dated  August  28,  1849,  1S  m  tne  Sibley  Papers.  The 
invitation  was  in  circular  form  and  gave  arguments  in  favor  of  the  construction  of  such  a  road. 


84  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

building  it  along  the  route  from  Red  River  of  the  North  used  by- 
Hudson's  Bay  Company.13 

Minnesota  was  more  immediately  interested,  however,  in 
a  railroad  to  connect  with  the  lines  which  were  at  that  time 
being  pushed  westward  from  Chicago  towards  the  Mississippi,14 
and  thus  secure  a  transportation  system  which  would  be  in 
operation  throughout  the  year.  Editorials  in  the  local  news- 
papers stated  that  the  natural  dependence  of  Minnesota  upon 
St.  Louis  would  soon  be  severed  and  that  the  railroad  from 
Chicago  to  the  Mississippi  would  "revolutionize  the  course  of 
trade  in  the  Northwest."15  The  people  should  look  forward  to 
this  situation,  it  was  urged,  and  favor  the  building  of  railroads. 
Bills  were  introduced  into  Congress  to  grant  alternate  sections 
of  land,  similar  to  the  Illinois  Central  grant  of  that  same  year, 
to  construct  a  railroad  from  the  Falls  of  St.  Croix  to  Lake 
Superior,  one  from  Green  Bay  to  St.  Paul,  and  one  from  Mil- 
waukee to  the  Mississippi.16  These  grants  would  be  made  to 
Wisconsin,  of  course,  but  were  of  interest  to  the  people  of 
Minnesota.  Minnesota  was  also  interested  in  a  railroad  entirely 
within  the  territory.  "Our  railroad  bill,"  Sibley  wrote  to 
Ramsey,  "giving  us  alternate  sections  on  each  side  of  the  road 
for  six  miles,  from  the  western  boundary  of  the  Territory  (the 
Missouri  river)  via  Lake  Traverse  and  the  Big  Bend  of  the  St. 
Peters  to  the  Iowa  line  in  the  direction  of  Dubuque  passed  the 
Senate  yesterday.  Its  fate  in  the  House  is  still  doubtful."17 
Sibley  worked  hard  for  the  passage  of  the  bill  by  the  House  and 
for  a  time  it  seemed  that  he  would  succeed.  On  August  15, 
1850,  he  wrote  to  Ramsey  that  he  had  secured  a  special  meeting 
of  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands  and  that  it  had  agreed  "by 
unanimous  vote"  to  report  the  bill  to  the  House.    "I  am  now 

13 Pioneer,  May  9,  1850,  and  Dec.  5,  1850. 

14  The  line  between  Chicago  and  the  Mississippi  was  completed  in  1854.  Its  opening  was 
celebrated  by  an  excursion  up  the  Mississippi  to  St.  Paul,  participated  in  by  leading  men  of  the 
oountry,  including  ex-president  Fillmore  and  George  Bancroft.    West,  Sibley,  214. 

15  Chronicle  and  Register,  April  20,  1850. 

16  Congressional  Globe,  31  Cong.  1  Sess.,  1456. 

17  Sibley  to  Ramsey,  July  19,  1850,  in  Ramsey  Papers.  Also  Congressional  Globe,  31  Cong. 
1  Sess.,  1409. 


NEEDS  OF  A  NEW  TERRITORY  85 

sanguine  of  its  passage/'  Sibley  wrote,  "as  it  has  already  been 
passed  by  the  Senate.''  A  month  later,  however,  he  decided  to 
let  the  bill  go  over  to  the  next  session  of  Congress.  He  wrote 
to  Ramsey  on  September  15,  that  the  bill  had  been  unanimously 
reported  back  to  the  House  by  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands 
but  that  he  feared  to  bring  it  forward  "because  of  an  unfavor- 
able vote  on  the  Tariff  yesterday  in  the  House,  which  has  so 
enraged  the  advocates  of  that  measure  in  the  northern  and 
middle  States,  that  they  swear  they  will  go  against  any  and 
all  grants  of  land  to  the  West  for  making  roads."  Thus  an 
unfavorable  vote  on  the  Tariff,  a  matter  in  which  Sibley  had 
no  voice,  caused  a  postponement  of  action  on  the  bill  and  meant 
a  delay  of  several  years  in  the  construction  of  railroads  in 
Minnesota.  The  people  of  the  territory  did  not  give  up  hope 
of  securing  land  grants,  however,  and  Sibley  introduced  similar 
bills  at  later  sessions  of  Congress,  but,  in  spite  of  his  efforts  in 
their  behalf,  none  of  them  were  passed  during  this  period.18 
The  pioneers  of  a  new  region  who  were  laying  the  founda- 
tions of  a  new  State  were  always  anxious  about  the  land  policy 
of  the  federal  government  and  especially  the  disposal  of  lands 
within  the  boundaries  of  the  proposed  commonwealth.  The 
ideas  of  pre-emption  and  home-stead  laws  originated  in  the 
West  and  western  men  were  the  most  earnest  advocates  of  a 
change  in  the  public  land  policy  whereby  the  public  domain 
would  be  used  to  encourage  settlement  rather  than  as  a  source 
of  revenue.  Sibley's  ideas  on  this  important  question  were 
typical  of  western  men.  He  made  an  important  speech  in 
Congress  on  April  24, 1852,  in  which  he  discussed  the  homestead 
bill  and  the  bill  proposing  to  donate  lands  in  the  territories  to 
the  older  States  for  the  care  of  the  indigent  insane.19  Some  of 
Sibley's  arguments  on  the  homestead  bill  had  been  made  before 
his  time  and  were  made  over  and  over  again  before  the  final 
passage  of  the  homestead  bill  in  1862.    Sibley  argued  that  some 

18  Samuel  Thatcher  to  Sibley,  Jan.  2, 1851.    Also  Congressional  Globe,  32  Cong.  1  Sess.,  21 ; 
and  32  Cong.  2  Sess.,  198. 

19  Congressional  Globe,  32  Cong.  1  Sess.,  App.  485-488. 


86  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

change  in  the  land  system  was  necessary  and  that  the  laws 
should  be  so  modified  as  "to  produce  a  greater  amount  of 
practical  good  to  the  people."  The  passage  of  a  homestead 
law,  he  asserted,  would  injure  no  class  of  our  citizens.  He  met 
the  argument  that  had  been  directed  against  the  bill  that  the 
decrease  in  the  receipts  from  the  sales  of  public  lands  would 
mean  increased  taxation  by  maintaining  that  free  lands  would 
increase  settlement,  which  in  turn  would  increase  importations 
and  thus  bring  larger  amounts  of  money  into  the  United  States 
Treasury  from  import  duties.  The  increase  in  the  sales  of 
public  land  had  not  kept  pace  with  the  increase  in  population, 
he  asserted,  and  the  high  prices  of  land  had  "forced  thousands 
upon  thousands  to  remain  in  the  corrupting  atmosphere  of 
your  large  cities,  who  otherwise  would  have  become  contented 
and  happy  tillers  of  the  soil."  The  government  should  favor 
the  increase  and  welfare  of  the  industrial  classes  because  it 
was  upon  them  that  "the  future  hopes  of  the  Republic  must 
rest."  Continuing,  Sibley  said:  "Sir,  I  have  never  spent  a  month 
in  any  State  of  this  Union.  My  life  has  been  passed  in  the 
Territories  upon  the  outer  verge  of  civilization.  I  know  the 
character  of  the  pioneer,  and  of  the  men  who  even  now  are  on 
their  way  to  the  West,  and  I  speak  understandingly  when  I 
say  that  it  is  in  such  homes  as  this  bill,  if  adopted,  will  create, 
which  will  forever  remain  the  nurseries  of  that  love  of  freedom 
by  which  alone  our  present  happy  form  of  government  can  be 
perpetuated.  From  the  abodes  of  the  working  classes  of  your 
inland  population  there  will  issue,  in  the  hour  of  danger  to  the 
country,  a  power  not  only  self-sustaining  but  abundantly  able 
to  bear  the  ship  of  state  through  all  the  storms  that  may  beset 
her." 

The  bill  for  the  relief  of  the  indigent  insane  in  the  older 
States  proposed  to  grant  the  title  to  certain  lands  in  the  terri- 
tories to  the  States  to  be  used  for  that  purpose.  Sibley  reflected 
the  typical  western  attitude  towards  such  a  measure.  He  op- 
posed granting  the  land  itself  because  such  a  procedure  would 
retard  settlement,  but  he  favored  instead  the  turning  over  to 


NEEDS  OF  A  NEW  TERRITORY  87 

the  States  for  the  relief  of  the  indigent  insane  the  proceeds  of 
the  sale  of  the  first  10,000,000  acres  of  land  which  might  be 
sold.  The  principles  of  the  bill  under  consideration,  he  asserted, 
would  cause  Minnesota  to  "languish  under  a  system  of  non- 
resident proprietorship  which  has  hitherto,  but  to  a  less  extent, 
been  the  bane  and  the  curse  of  the  West."  It  was  unfair  to 
the  settlers  of  a  new  region  for  the  government  to  do  anything 
that  would  tend  to  retard  settlement  and  thus  delay  the  forma- 
tion of  State  governments.  "Sir,  when  these  temporary 
governments  were  established  there  was  an  implied  but  solemn 
pledge  given  by  Congress  that  so  soon  as  the  increase  of  popula- 
tion would  justify  it,  the  Territories  should  be  admitted,  in 
accordance  with  established  precedent,  into  the  Union,  with 
the  same  advantages  and  upon  an  equal  footing  with  the 
original  States,  in  all  respects  whatever.  It  is  with  this  assur- 
ance that  Minnesota  and  Oregon  are  now  augmenting  in  popu- 
lation with  unexampled  rapidity  and  no  man  immigrates  to 
either  who  does  not  look  forward  to  their  speedy  admission 
into  this  Union.  It  is  this  expectation  which  nerves  the  settler 
to  meet  all  the  trials,  and  overcome  all  the  difficulties  which 
fall  to  the  lot  of  those  who  lead  the  vanguard  of  civilization. 
.  .  .  The  Minnesotians  are  a  peaceful  and  law-respecting 
people;  but  it  may  well  be  imagined  that  after  they  have  pene- 
trated the  wilderness,  endured  all  the  trials  and  sufferings  insep- 
arable from  the  settlement  of  a  new  territory,  made  sacrifices 
of  every  kind  in  advancing  the  interests  of  our  beautiful  Terri- 
tory and  built  up  villages  and  towns  by  the  labor  of  their  hands, 
with  a  view  to  meet  the  wants  and  requirements  of  a  rapidly 
increasing  population,  I  say  it  may  readily  be  imagined  that 
they  would  not  be  prepared  to  greet  with  much  cordiality  the 
commissaries  of  the  States  who  might  go  among  them  'to  spy  out 
the  land*  which  their  own  toil  had  rendered  valuable  in  order 
to  secure  its  transfer  to  absentee  proprietors  to  the  exclusion 
of  the  friends  and  former  neighbors  of  the  pioneers  of  the 
country."  Sibley  had  the  satisfaction  of  seeing  the  bill  for  the 
transfer  of  lands  to  the  States  for  the  relief  of  the  indigent 


88  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

insane  fail  to  become  a  law.  He  did  not  oppose  affording  proper 
relief  to  any  class  of  unfortunate  people,  but  he  did  oppose  with 
all  his  might  the  transfer  of  title  to  lands  within  the  territories 
to  the  States. 

The  people  of  Minnesota  were  also  interested  in  having  the 
military  reserve  at  Fort  Snelling  greatly  decreased  in  size.  In 
1805  when  Lieutenant  Pike  had  made  his  exploring  expedition 
up  the  Mississippi,  he  had  negotiated  a  treaty  with  the  Indians 
for  the  cession  of  lands  for  a  military  reserve  west  of  that  river 
in  the  region  of  the  St.  Peters.  In  18 19  Congress  appropriated 
$ 2,000  to  carry  this  part  of  the  treaty  into  effect  and  the  mili- 
tary post  which  was  soon  called  Fort  Snelling  was  established. 
In  1839  tne  Emits  of  the  reserve  were  finally  established  and 
included  some  55,000  acres  of  the  most  desirable  lands  in  Min- 
nesota. With  the  passing  of  the  Indian  frontier  it  became 
evident  that  the  government  would  not  need  all  of  this  land 
for  a  military  reserve  and  squatters  settled  upon  it,  at  first 
with  the  consent  of  the  military  authorities  at  Fort  Snelling. 
In  1838  many  of  the  squatters  were  forced  to  move  to  the  east 
side  of  the  river  where  they  "squatted"  again  on  the  reserva- 
tion lands.  Considerable  friction  existed,  however,  between 
them  and  the  military  authorities,  chiefly  because  of  the  ease 
with  which  soldiers  at  Fort  Snelling  could  secure  liquor,  and, 
in  1840,  the  squatters  were  driven  off  the  lands  east  of  the  river 
and  their  cabins  were  destroyed.  They  then  moved  down  the 
river  beyond  the  limits  of  the  reservation  and  begun  the  settle- 
ment which  in  time  became  St.  Paul. 

As  early  as  November,  1849,  tne  territorial  legislature 
passed  a  joint  resolution  calling  upon  Sibley  to  use  his  influence 
with  the  Department  to  have  the  reservation  confined  between 
the  Mississippi  and  Minnesota  rivers  and  for  pre-emption 
rights  in  favor  of  the  settlers  who  had  been  driven  off  the  reser- 
vation lands.20  On  January  10,  1850,  the  Secretary  of  War 
informed  Sibley  that  the  President  had  directed  the  sale  of 

20  Minnesota  Chronicle,  Miarch  30,  1850. 


NEEDS  OF  A  NEW  TERRITORY  89 

such  part  of  the  reserve  as  was  no  longer  required  for  the  use 
of  the  post.21  The  bill  to  reduce  and  define  the  boundaries  of 
the  reserve  was  introduced  in  the  Senate  by  Douglas,  at  Sibley's 
request,  and  passed  the  Senate  without  difficulty,  but  called 
forth  considerable  debate  in  the  House.  The  principal  obj  ection 
offered  was  that  the  War  Department  had  not  approved  the 
reduction  of  the  military  reserve  and  some  members  were  afraid 
that  in  a  short  time  it  would  be  necessary  to  buy  back  the  land 
at  a  much  higher  price  than  it  would  be  sold  for.  Other  mem- 
bers objected  to  the  provision  granting  pre-emption  rights  to 
the  squatters  who  had  settled  on  the  lands.  In  reply  to  a  ques- 
tion by  Wentworth,  of  Illinois,  Sibley  stated  that  perhaps  not 
more  than  ten  or  twelve  persons  would  be  benefitted  by  the 
pre-emption  provision  in  the  bill  and  he  admitted  that  he  him- 
self was  one  of  the  squatters,  since  his  house  at  Mendota  which 
he  had  built  fifteen  years  previously  was  on  the  land  which  it 
was  now  proposed  to  open  up.  He  stated,  however,  that  he 
asked  no  favors  not  granted  to  others.  After  a  long  debate 
Sibley  moved  to  refer  the  bill  to  the  Committee  on  Military 
Affairs  since,  as  he  said,  he  "wished  nothing  done  in  reference 
to  this  subject  which  would  not  bear  the  strictest  scrutiny."22 
When  the  people  in  Minnesota  thought  that  the  bill  with  the 
pre-emption  provision  would  be  passed  by  Congress  many  who 
were  not  entitled  to  pre-emption  rights  hastened  to  set  up 
claims.23  Sibley  was  in  a  very  awkward  position.  It  had  been 
the  intention  of  the  legislature  in  its  memorial  that  pre-emption 
should  apply  to  those  squatters  who  had  been  driven  off  the 
reserve,  but  the  way  the  bill  was  drawn  these  men  would  not 
be  benefitted.  Sibley  feared,  therefore,  that  he  would  be  ac- 
cused of  looking  after  his  personal  interests  and  those  of  the  fur 
company  and  neglecting  the  interests  of  the  other  squatters.24 

21  This  probably  referred  to  lands  west  of  the  Mississippi  and  on  the  east  side  of  that  river, 
south  of  the  St.  Peters  river.    Minnesota  Pioneer,  Feb.  20,  1850. 

22  Congressional  Globe,  31  Cong.  2  Sess.,  433-443. 

23  H.  A.  Lambert  to  Sibley,  March  18,  1850. 

24  Sibley  to  Ramsey,  May  22,  1850,  in  Ramsey  Papers.  This  discussion  was  brought  up 
against  Sibley  during  the  campaign  of  1850  and  was  referred  to  in  the  "Hal  Squibble"  broadside. 
See  Chapter  V,  above. 


90  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

The  bill  did  not  become  a  law,  however,  and  other  petitions 
were  sent  to  Congress  upon  the  subject.  In  1852  the  reserve 
was  finally  reduced  and,  through  Land  Claim  Associations, 
the  settlers  secured  the  lands  at  the  minimum  price*of  $  1.25 
per  acre.25 

85  Folwell,  Minnesota  the  North  Star  State,  129-130. 


CHAPTER  VII 
THE  INDIAN  PROBLEM  ON  THE  FRONTIER 

(a)  The  Indian  Policy  of  the  United  States  Government 

The  presence  of  the  Indian  on  the  frontier  was  a  problem 
that  confronted  the  settlers  in  all  sections  of  the  country.  A 
discussion  of  the  various  phases  of  the  question  as  it  presented 
itself  to  the  pioneers  of  Minnesota  will  be  typical,  therefore, 
of  what  happened  over  and  over  again  in  the  conquest  and 
settlement  of  the  continent.  Indian  traders  went  everywhere 
and  liquor  frequently  or  usually  went  with  them.  The  advance 
of  white  settlement  meant  a  shifting  of  the  various  Indian 
tribes  from  one  location  to  another.  The  presence  of  valuable 
timber  or  minerals  on  lands  not  yet  ceded  to  the  United  States 
by  the  Indians  was  also  a  frequent  cause  of  trouble  between  the 
races.  Finally,  the  pressure  of  settlement  on  the  Indian  frontier 
became  so  great  that  new  treaties  had  to  be  negotiated  with  the 
Indian  tribes  for  their  removal  in  order  to  open  up  new  areas 
of  settlement  to  the  whites.  The  pioneers  of  Minnesota  had  to 
contend  with  the  Indian  problem  in  all  of  these  phases. 

It  is  a  well  known  fact  that  in  the  contact  of  races  the 
inferior  race  takes  on  the  vices  before  it  takes  on  the  virtues 
of  the  superior  race.  The  Indians  were  not  constitutionally 
able  to  resist  the  evil  influences  of  the  liquor  traffic  and  many 
traders,  in  spite  of  laws  to  the  contrary,  took  supplies  of  this 
commodity  into  the  Indian  country  as  a  necessary  part  of  their 
supply  of  goods  for  trade  with  the  red  men,  justifying  them- 
selves in  their  own  eyes,  if  any  such  justification  was  necessary, 
by  the  fact  that  other  traders  would  do  the  same  and  that  the 
Indians  would  demand  the  "fire-water"  and  would  trade  only 
where  it  could  be  obtained. 

91 


92 


TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 


Sibley  was  always  opposed  to  the  use  of  liquor  in  the  Indian 
trade  and  one  of  his  first  acts  after  reaching  Washington  in 
December,  1849,  as  tne  ^rst  elected  delegate  from  Minnesota 
Territory,  was  to  address  a  communication  to  the  Secretary 
of  State  informing  him  of  the  fact  that  the  Hudson  Bay  Com- 
pany was  regularly  furnishing  liquor  to  the  Indian  tribes  within 
the  limits  of  the  United  States  and  asking  if  friendly  remon- 
strance could  not  be  lodged  with  the  British  Government 
against  the  practice.  He  stated  that  the  situation  was  not 
only  demoralizing  to  the  Indians,  but  was  threatening  the 
peace  of  the  northwestern  frontier.  The  Secretary  of  State 
replied  that  the  United  States  Minister  in  London  had  been 
directed  to  bring  the  matter  to  the  attention  of  the  British 
Government  and  to  remonstrate  against  the  practice.1 

The  Hudson  Bay  Company  was  not  the  only  means,  how- 
ever, by  which  liquor  reached  the  Indians  of  Minnesota.  The 
Act  of  March  3,  1847,  made  it  unlawful  to  take  liquor  within 
the  boundaries  of  the  Indian  country,  but  it  did  not  prevent 
its  sale  to  the  Indians  just  outside  of  those  boundaries.  Also, 
as  has  been  stated,  some  traders  took  it  into  the  Indian  country 
in  defiance  of  law.  The  result  was  that  Indians  could  secure 
it  without  difficulty,  and  that  much  drunkenness  was  in  evi- 
dence. Sibley  attempted  to  protect  the  Indians  against  this 
demoralization,  but  the  evil  could  not  be  entirely  eradicated.2 

The  one  great  question  on  which  Sibley  was  qualified  to 
speak  in  Congress  was  the  Indian  policy  of  the  United  States 
government.  He  not  only  knew  the  workings  of  that  policy 
thoroughly,  but  he  knew  the  Indian  and  the  Indian  question 
more  thoroughly  than  any  man  in  Congress  at  that  time.  Sibley 
had  lived  on  the  frontier  for  fifteen  years;  he  had  not  only 
traded  with  the  Indians,  but  he  had  lived  among  them  and 

1  Clayton  to  Sibley,  Dec.  IX,  1849,  published  in  Minnesota  Chronicle,  Jan.  8,  1850. 

2  J.  E.  Fletcher  to  Sibley,  Jan.  19, 1849,  and  H.  A.  Lambert  to  Sibley,  Feb.  6,  1849.  Also 
Minnesota  Chronicle ,  Jan.  19,  1950.  Also  Congressional  Globe,  31  Congress,  1  Sess.  295.  There 
is  a  letter  to  Sibley  from  Lewis  Cass,  Secretary  of  War,  dated  Nov.  5,  1834,  which  indicates 
Sibley's  early  attitude:  "I  am  glad  to  learn  the  determination  of  the  company  you  are  associated 
with  to  comply  with  the  law  prohibiting  the  sale  of  ardent  spirits  to  the  Indians." 


INDIAN  PROBLEM  93 

knew  their  language,  their  character,  their  possibilities,  and 
their  condition  under  the  existing  policy  of  the  government. 
He  was  convinced  that  the  methods  of  the  United  States 
government  in  dealing  with  the  Indians  was  radically  wrong 
and  he  made  many  eloquent  appeals  in  behalf  of  the  red  man 
while  he  was  in  Congress. 

In  an  unfinished  manuscript  left  among  his  papers  (undated 
but  probably  written  about  this  time)  Sibley  enumerated  six 
defects  of  the  government's  Indian  policy.  One  effect  of  that 
policy  was  to  cause  strife  and  rivalry  among  the  Indians  them- 
selves. Sibley  believed  that  conditions  among  the  native 
tribes  were  better  before  the  government  exercised  any  control 
over  them  than  it  was  at  any  subsequent  time.  "The  tribes 
which  have  had  dealings  with  the  government,"  he  wrote, 
"are  much  more  miserable  than  the  bands  further  removed 
who  subsist  entirely  by  the  chase.  With  them  the  authority 
of  the  chiefs  is  much  better  established,  and,  living  on  the  most 
intimate  and  friendly  terms  with  their  traders,  they  are  fur- 
nished with  ammunition  and  clothing  in  exchange  for  the  skins 
of  wild  animals,  and,  their  few  wants  thus  supplied,  they  are 
free  from  cares  and  are  comparatively  happy.  The  instant  the 
arm  of  their  'Great  Father'  is  extended  to  them  for  the  purpose 
of  acquiring  their  lands  their  miseries  commence.  Parties  are 
forthwith  formed  in  the  state  and  the  simple  savage  is  con- 
verted into  an  intrignant  for  place  and  an  aspirant  for  the 
honor  of  wearing  a  larger  medal,  the  gift  of  the  Government, 
than  his  neighbor."  Sibley  believed  that  the  policy  of  concen- 
trating the  tribes  in  Indian  Territory  was  wrong  because  it 
might  lead  to  the  formation  of  a  powerful  confederacy  there 
and  thus  endanger  that  section  of  the  frontier.  He  also  thought 
that  it  was  unfair  to  take  the  Indians  from  their  northern 
hunting  grounds  to  the  southwestern  part  of  the  United  States 
where  climatic  conditions  were  so  different.  The  stipulations 
in  the  various  Indian  treaties,  Sibley  asserted,  were  not  carried 
out  in  good  faith.  Oral  promises  were  frequently  made  by  the 
Commissioners  who  negotiated  the  treaties  and,  since  these 


94  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

provisions  were  not  incorporated  into  the  treaties,  the  Indian 
Agents  who  subsequently  came  among  the  Indians  knew 
nothing  about  them  and  trouble  inevitable  followed.  The 
Indian  Agents  usually  did  not  understand  the  Indians  and  were 
consequently  without  influence  among  them.  "The  Agents 
being  for  the  most  part  selected  from  among  brawling  parti- 
sans," he  wrote,  "rather  than  for  any  peculiar  fitness  for  office 
and,  ignorant  of  Indian  character,  to  avoid  trouble  to  them- 
selves in  the  discharge  of  their  official  duties,  receive  the  chiefs 
&  principal  men  who  visit  them  abruptly  and  cavalierly  and 
have  not  the  patience  to  hear  and  faithfully  report  their  com- 
plaint to  the  Department.  The  writer  has  witnessed  this  in 
numberless  instances  as  well  as  the  mortification  and  resentment 
felt  &  expressed  by  the  slighted  party  after  such  reception. " 
Another  defect  of  the  Indian  policy  was  in  hiring  inefficient 
interpreters.  Sibley  believed  that  this  position  should 
pay  enough  salary  to  attract  men  of  intelligence  and  education. 
Under  the  system  then  existing  the  office  was  "necessarily 
conferred  upon  men  who  either  from  ignorance  or  indolence 
cannot  or  will  not  earn  their  subsistence  elsewhere.  The  Agents 
are  made  to  say  to  the  Indians  what  they  never  dreamed  of  and 
vice  versa,  and  thus  the  relations  of  the  Government  are  daily 
jeopardised  under  the  operation  of  this  'penny  wise  and  pound 
foolish'  system/'  Finally,  crimes  committed  by  Indians  should 
be  certainly  and  promptly  punished.  Sibley  stated  that  the 
policy  of  Great  Britian  was  much  better  in  this  respect  than 
that  of  the  United  States.  He  cited  an  instance  while  the 
British  were  still  in  charge  at  Prairie  du  Chien  in  1813  when 
two  Canadians  had  been  murdered  by  the  Indians.  The  mur- 
derers were  immediately  captured,  tried  by  'a  drum-head 
martial,'  and  executed  the  same  evening  in  the  presence  of 
several  members  of  the  tribe.  "No  more  murders  were  com- 
mitted," Sibley  wrote,  "while  the  British  held  the  country." 
"After  all,"  he  continued,  "the  secret  of  the  attachment  of  the 
northwestern  Indians  to  the  English  government  may  be  traced 
to  this  spirit  of  promptness.    Promises  when  made  were  reli- 


INDIAN  PROBLEM  95 

giously  kept,  and  threats  when  uttered  invariably  carried  into 
effect.  If  this  plan  was  pursued  and  the  other  evils  corrected 
which  have  been  noticed  above,  I  assert  without  fear  of  contra- 
diction that  the  Indians  everywhere  would  become  as  much 
attached  to  our  Government  as  they  ever  were  to  the  British, 
and  no  further  fears  need  be  entertained  that  our  frontier  will 
ever  have  to  undergo  the  horrors  of  a  savage  war."3 

Sibley's  proposed  solution  of  the  Indian  problem  fore- 
shadows by  many  years  the  legislation  when  the  United  States 
finally  decided  to  abandon  the  policy  of  regarding  the  Indian 
tribes  as  "nations"  with  whom  treaties  would  be  negotiated,4 
and  substituted  the  plan  of  civilizing  and  educating  them  and 
helping  them  to  become  self-supporting.  As  a  final  result  of  the 
system  then  existing,  Sibley  saw  only  the  eventual  disappear- 
ance of  the  American  Indian  from  the  face  of  the  earth.  In  a 
letter  to  Senator  H.  S.  Foote  he  stated  what  he  believed  to  be 
the  inevitable  consequences  of  the  Indian  policy.  "The 
Indian  is  here  in  his  forest  home,  hitherto  secure  from  the 
intrusion  of  the  pale  faces;  but  the  advancing  tide  of  civiliza- 
tion warns  him  that  ere  long  he  must  yield  up  his  title  to  this 
fair  domain,  and  seek  another  and  a  strange  dwelling  place.  It 
is  a  melancholy  reflection  that  the  large  and  warlike  tribes  of 
Sioux  and  Chippewas  who  now  own  full  nine-tenths  of  the  soil 
of  Minnesota  must  soon  be  subjected  to  the  operation  of  the 
same  causes  that  have  swept  their  Eastern  brethern  from  the 
earth  unless  an  entirely  different  policy  is  pursued  by  the 
Government  towards  them.  If  they  were  brought  under  the 
influence  and  restraint  of  our  benign  laws,  and  some  hope 
extended  to  them  that  education  and  a  course  of  moral  training 
would,  at  some  future  period  hereafter,  entitle  them  to  be 

3  Sibley  introduced  bills  to  bring  about  reform  in  the  Indian  policy,  but  without  success. 
Congressional  Globe,  31  Cong.  1  Sess.  295.  The  fact  that  Sibley  was  a  fur  trader  and  was  con- 
nected with  a  large  fur  company  may  have  caused  some  members  of  Congress  to  look  with 
some  suspicion  upon  his  proposed  reforms  in  the  relations  with  the  Indians. 

4  The  Indian  tribes  were  denationalized  by  the  Act  of  March  3,  1871. 


g6  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

placed  upon  an  equality,  socially  and  politically,  with  the 
whites,  much  good  would  be  the  result."5 

Sibley  attempted  to  have  the  bill  for  the  census  of  1850  so 
amended  as  to  have  an  enumeration  made  of  all  the  Indian 
tribes.  He  believed  that  if  such  an  enumeration  had  been  made 
at  the  time  of  each  census  it  would  have  shown  a  diminution  of 
from  20,000  to  30,000  Indians  each  census  and  would  have 
brought  about  an  investigation  of  the  cause  of  the  decrease  in 
the  Indian  population.  He  believed  that  the  decrease  and  "the 
wretched  and  forlorn  condition  of  the  remaining  tribes  is  to 
be  ascribed  entirely  to  the  unsympathetic  and  cruel  policy  of 
the  Government  towards  them,  and  to  no  other  cause."  In 
that  session  of  Congress  made  famous  by  the  great  debates  over 
slavery  Sibley  made  the  following  earnest  plea  for  the  Indian: 
"Sir,  during  this  session  we  have  heard  these  Halls  ring  with 
elequent  denunciations  of  the  oppressor — with  expressions  of 
sympathy  for  the  down-trodden  millions  of  other  lands;  while 
gentlemen  seem  not  to  be  aware  that  there  exists  under  the 
Government  of  this  Republic,  a  species  of  grinding  and  intoler- 
able oppression,  of  which  the  Indian  tribes  are  the  victims, 
compared  with  which  the  worst  form  of  human  bondage  now 
existing  in  any  Christian  State  may  be  regarded  as  a  comfort 
and  a  blessing."6 

Upon  reading  Sibley's  speech  on  the  census  bill,  Ramsey 
Crooks,  president  of  the  American  Fur  Company,  immediately 
wrote  to  Sibley  congratulating  him  and  expressing  the  hope 
that  he  would  "completely  expose"  the  whole  Indian  policy  of 
the  government.7  This  Sibley  did  in  an  able  and  eloquent 
speech  in  Congress  on  August  2,  1850.8  He  stated  that  while 
the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  made  annual  reports  not 

6  Sibley  to  Foote,  Feb.  15, 1850,  published  in  the  Washington  Union  and  also  in  Minnesota 
Historical  Collections,  1:20-21. 

6  Congressional  Globe,  31  Cong.  1  Sess.  855-856. 

7  "You  are  the  only  man  who  has  ever  been  in  Congress  that  fully  understands  the  rami- 
fications of  this  truly  momentious  question  and  you  owe  it  to  the  country  to  put  on  record 
developments  that  will  astonish  the  public  and  produce  a  salutory  reformation."  Crooks  to 
Sibley,  May  7,  1850. 

8  Congressional  Globe,  31  Cong.  1  Sess.  1 506-1 508. 


INDIAN  PROBLEM  97 

one-tenth  of  the  members  of  either  house  of  Congress  ever 
took  the  trouble  to  read  them,  and  that  the  Committee  on 
Indian  Affairs  never  pretended  to  do  more  than  act  upon 
business  brought  before  it.  There  was  no  real  investigation  of 
conditions  and  no  constructive  policy  in  dealing  with  the  prob- 
lem. Sibley  believed  that  more  attention  had  formerly  been 
paid  to  Indian  affairs  and  stated  that  several  "plans  were  origi- 
nated to  meliorate  the  condition  of  the  Indian  race,"  but  that 
no  systematic  effort  had  ever  been  made  "to  civilize  them  or 
to  prepare  them  for  admission  into  the  great  American  society 
of  freemen."  Individuals  had  tried  to  evangelize  them,  but 
with  little  success.  Sibley  contrasted  our  treatment  of  the 
Indians  with  the  policies  of  the  Greeks,  Romans,  and  Franks 
in  dealing  with  conquered  peoples  and  with  the  British  policy 
in  India.  "It  remained  for  those  Anglo-Saxons,"  he  said, 
"who  fled  to  this  New  World  to  escape  persecution  at  home,  and 
for  their  descendants,  boastful  as  they  ever  are  and  have  ever 
been  of  their  philanthropy  and  their  religion — it  remained  for 
them,  I  say,  to  show  to  the  world  that  while  they  wrested  from 
the  red  man  the  soil  which  gave  him  birth,  they  neither  incor- 
porated him  into  their  community  as  a  member,  nor  bestowed 
upon  him  any  of  those  beneficent  appliances  which  were 
necessary  to  preserve  him  and  raise  him  to  a  level  with  them- 
selves. From  the  days  of  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  to  the  present  time, 
there  is  the  same  sad  story  to  be  repeated  of  grievous  wrongs 
inflicted  upon  this  unhappy  race."  He  maintained  that  the 
policy  of  removing  the  Indians  to  reservations  west  of  the 
Mississippi  had  had  disastrous  effects  upon  "the  bands  of  wild 
and  noble  savages  who  roam  the  western  prairies,"  since  the 
Indians  who  were  removed  were  "reeking  with  the  vices  but 
possessed  none  of  the  virtues  of  the  whites."  If  the  government 
had  elevated  the  Indians  before  their  removal  westward  their 
removal  might  then  have  had  the  opposite  effect.  The  result  of 
the  government's  policy  was  that  most  of  the  Indians  who  had 
been  removed  were  "secret  and  avowed  enemies  of  the  United 
States."    The  fact  that  the  Indians  were  powerless  to  redress 


98  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

their  grievances  should  compel  the  government  to  perform  its 
obligations.  "I  will  venture  to  assert,"  he  said,  "that  not  one 
in  ten  of  the  treaties  made  will  be  found  to  have  been  carried 
out  in  good  faith."  Such  treatment  of  the  Indians  could  only- 
make  enemies  of  them,  and  this  feeling  of  hostility  was  trans- 
mitted to  the  tribes  with  whom  these  Indians  came  in  contact 
in  the  West.  This  was  the  cause  of  our  Indian  wars, 
Sibley  said,  and  the  government  would  continue  to  have  trouble 
as  long  as  it  followed  the  existing  policy  in  dealing  with 
the  Indians. 

To  civilize  the  Indian,  Sibley  argued,  his  ambition  must 
first  be  stimulated;  he  must  be  given  hope;  his  confidence  must 
be  won;  and  he  must  be  convinced  that  the  pledged  faith  of  the 
government  is  binding.  The  first  step  in  the  improvement  of 
the  Indian  must  be  to  extend  to  him  the  protection  of  the  law.9 
Such  a  provision  "has  for  its  object  the  security  of  life  and  prop- 
erty among  the  Indians  themselves,  to  protect  the  industri- 
ally disposed  against  the  system  of  communism  by  which  they 
are  oppressed."  They  should  then  be  given  lands  without 
power  of  alienation,  conditioned  upon  living  and  cultivating 
the  land."  "Give  the  Indian  a  home  and  you  will  have  done 
much  to  redeem  him.  You  thereby  begin  the  process  of  dena- 
tionalization, and  the  end  will  be  his  incorporation  into  the 
American  family.  Meanwhile  bestow  upon  him  civil  privileges, 
withholding  political  rights  until  he  is  sufficiently  advanced 
to  appreciate  their  enjoyment.  Establish  manual-labor 
schools  for  the  education  of  his  children  in  the  useful 
arts,  and  in  the  English  language,  and  afford  him  at  the  same 
time  the  blessings  of  religious  instruction.  .  .  .  Adopt  these 
incipient  measures  and  thus  prepare  the  way  for  the  reception 
of  the  Indian  as  an  equal  into  your  community.  .  .  .  But, 
Mr.  Chairman,  I  remark  in  conclusion  that  if  anything  is  to  be 
done  it  must  be  done  now.  The  busy  hum  of  civilized  com- 
munities is  already  heard  far  beyond  the  mighty  Mississippi. 

8  Congressional  Globe,  30  Cong.  2  Sess.  448;  31  Cong.  2  Sess.  18,  22. 


INDIAN  PROBLEM  99 

.  .  .  Your  pioneers  are  encircling  the  last  home  of  the  red 
man,  as  with  a  wall  of  fire.  Their  encroachments  are  percep- 
tible in  the  restlessness  and  beligerent  demonstrations  of  the 
powerful  bands  who  inhabit  your  remote  western  plains.  You 
must  approach  these  with  terms  of  conciliation  and  of  real 
friendship,  or  you  must  soon  suffer  the  consequences  of  a 
bloody  and  remorseless  Indian  war.  .  .  .  The  time  is  not  far 
distant  when,  pent  in  and  suffering  from  want,  a  Philip  or  a 
Tecumseh  will  arise  to  band  them  together  for  a  last  and  des- 
perate onset  upon  their  white  foes.  What  then  will  avail  the 
handful  of  soldiers  stationed  to  guard  the  frontier?  Sir,  they 
and  your  entire  western  settlements  will  be  swept  away  as 
with  a  besom  of  destruction.  We  know  that  the  struggle  in 
such  case  would  be  unavailing  on  the  part  of  the  Indians  and 
must  necessarily  end  in  their  extermination.  .  .  .  Well  might 
the  eloquent  Sevier,  whose  voice  is  now  silenced  in  death,  thus 
appeal  to  the  Senate  in  behalf  of  the  Indian  tribes  in  1839. 
Said  he:  "Let  us  remember  the  kind  and  hospitable  reception 
of  our  ancestors  by  the  natives  of  the  country,  a  reception  which 
has  been  perpetuated  in  carved  figures  in  the  walls  of  the 
Rotunda  of  this  capitol;  and  in  remembering  these  things,  let 
us  this  day  step  forward  and  do  something  for  our  wretched 
dependents,  worthy  of  a  great,  merciful,  and  generous  people.,, 
Sibley's  eloquent  words  in  behalf  of  the  Indian  were  not 
heeded  and  Mason,  of  Kentucky,  turned  the  discussion  from 
the  Indian  to  the  slavery  question.  "Nature  and  Nature's 
God,"  said  he,  "made  the  white  man,  the  red  man,  and  the 
black  man;  and  when  gentlemen  undertook  to  make  them  equal, 
they  undertake  an  impossible  task.  Our  friends  in  the  free 
States  from  the  North  have  manifested  as  great  a  desire  to 
elevate  the  condition  of  the  African  race —  the  black  man — 
as  my  friend  from  Minnesota  has  shown  to  elevate  the  condition 
of  the  red  man."  It  was  hardly  to  be  expected  that  the  session 
of  Congress  that  produced  the  Compromise  of  1850  over  the 
slavery  question  would  take  favorable  action  in  behalf  of  the 
oppressed  Indian.    The  system  was  not  changed  and  the  con- 


IOO  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

sequences  which  Sibley  had  so  accurately  foretold  came  in  the 
great  Sioux  uprising  of  1862,  and  Sibley  himself  was  the  man 
to  whom  the  Minnesota  pioneers  turned  in  their  hour  of  danger 
to  save  them  from  the  horrors  of  another  Indian  war. 

(B)  The  Rice  Contract 

The  contract  which  Henry  M.  Rice  made  with  Orlando 
Brown,  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs,  in  1850,  for  the  removal 
of  the  Winnebago  Indians  to  their  new  reservation  in  northern 
Minnesota  is  important,  not  only  as  a  test  of  strength  or  "pull" 
between  Sibley  and  Rice,  but  also  as  an  illustration  of  one 
phase  of  the  government's  policy  in  dealing  with  the  Indians. 

The  Winnebagoes  belonged  to  the  Siouan  linguistic  family 
and  had  lived  in  the  region  west  of  Green  Bay  at  least  since 
1634  when  Nicollet  made  them  known  to  history.  Together 
with  the  Sauk  and  Foxes  and  the  Menominees  they  controlled 
the  Fox-Wisconsin  route  to  the  West,  and  thus  exercised  con- 
siderable influence  in  determining  the  course  of  trade  of  the 
upper  Mississippi.  By  the  Treaty  of  Prairie  du  Chien  they 
ceded  all  their  lands  south  of  the  Fox  and  Wisconsin  rivers 
in  return  for  a  reservation  west  of  the  Mississippi.  By  the 
Treaty  of  1837  they  gave  up  all  claims  to  lands  east  of  the 
Mississippi  and  in  1846  removed  to  the  "neutral  ground"  in 
Iowa  Territory.  The  advance  of  settlement  by  the  whites 
made  necessary  another  treaty  with  them,  and  in  1846  they 
surrendered  their  reservation  for  another  one  to  be  located 
north  of  the  Minnesota  river  in  what  was  soon  to  be  Minnesota 
Territory.10  This  reservation  was  selected  for  them  by  Henry 
M.  Rice,  who  had  considerable  influence  among  them,  and  they 
were  removed  to  the  Crow  Wing  reservation  in  1848,  Rice 
aiding  in  their  removal.  It  had  been  the  hope  of  the  Indian 
Department  that  the  Winnebagoes  would  form  a  buffer  state 
between  the  Chippewas  and  the  Sioux,  who  had  been  traditional 
enemies,  but  this  plan  did  not  succeed.    The  Winnebagoes  were 

10  J.  Owen  Dorsey  and  Paul  Radin,  "The  Winnebagoes,"  in  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology 
Bulletin^  30,  Part  2,  958-59. 


INDIAN  PROBLEM  IOI 

dissatisfied  even  before  they  reached  Crow  Wing,  and  liked  it 
still  less  after  they  reached  there.  As  a  consequence,  they  soon 
began  to  scatter,  some  of  them  wandering  off  towards  the 
Dakota  region.  Complaints  soon  came  to  the  authorities 
regarding  the  depredations  committed  by  these  roving  bands. 
Orlando  Brown,  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs,  wrote  to  the 
Secretay  of  War,  G.  W.  Crawford,  stating  that  the  department 
had  been  petitioned  regarding  roving  bands  of  Pottawattamie, 
Winnebago,  and  Fox  Indians,  and  asking  that  the  commanding 
officer  at  the  nearest  military  post  be  ordered  to  inquire  into 
the  complaints  and  compel  the  Indians  to  return  to  their 
reservations.  The  Adjutant  General  wrote  to  General  Clark 
at  St.  Louis  to  have  the  commanding  officer  at  Fort  Snelling 
remove  the  intruders.11 

The  Indians  seem  to  have  been  doing  little  real  harm  in 
the  regions  where  they  were  roving  about  except  where  they 
were  encouraged  by  lawless  white  men  to  make  depredations 
on  the  frontier  settlements.  Chief  Justice  Williams,  of  Iowa, 
denounced  these  "unprincipled  outlawed  white  men"  in  a  letter 
to  Major  Murphy,  Indian  Agent  at  St.  Peters.  "When  it  may 
be  to  the  advantage  of  these  lawless  white  vagrants,"  he  wrote, 
"they  will  assail  and  Rob  the  Indians  and  charge  their  acts 
upon  innocent  settlers  and  good  citizens  and  then  they  will 
Rob  and  steal  from  the  settlers  and  charge  their  acts  upon  the 
Indians.  These  white  savages  have  great  influence  with  the 
Indians  and  as  it  suits  their  purpose  to  keep  up  this  state  of 
things  they  advise  and  aid  the  Indians  in  rebellion  against  the 
Government  and  its  agents.  For  shrewdness  in  villany  and 
capacity  in  judging  of  the  means  possessed  by  the  officers  of 
the  Government  for  the  management  of  the  Indians  these  men 
cannot  be  surpassed."12 

Major  Woods  was  sent  out  from  Fort  Snelling  in  September, 
1849,  on  an  exploring  expedition  through  Iowa  to  investigate 

11  Copies  of  these  letters  of  August  22  and  23,  1849,  are  m  the  Sibley  Papers.  A  copy  of 
one  of  the  petitions  signed  by  forty  people,  under  date  of  Feb.  28,  1850,  is  also  in  the  Sibley 
Papers. 

12  Williams  to  Murphy,  Aug.  31,  1849, m  Sibley  Papers. 


IOi  '    *  '         *  TRANSITION  OF  a  typical  frontier 

the  conditions.  He  found  that  the  reports  were  greatly  exag- 
gerated and  that  the  Indians  were  doing  little  real  harm.  "The 
frontier  seems  to  be  much  disturbed/'  he  reported,  "by  the 
presence  of  horse  thieves  &  plunderers  of  every  description  to 
rid  themselves  of  whom  the  law-abiding  portion  of  the  com- 
munity, as  they  consider  themselves,  have  formed  into  a 
body,  sworn  to  clear  or  exterminate  from  the  Frontier  .this 
numerous  &  troublesome  association  of  marauders.  In  execu- 
tion of  which  design  these  regulators  have  already  hung  to 
trees  several  men  &  shot  more,  without  the  troublesome  & 
uncertain  resort  to  Judges  &  Jurymen.  This  policy  may  drive 
these  offenders  back  among  the  Indians  with  whom  they  unite 
&  probably  return  with  redoubled  fury  &  power  to  carry  out 
their  nefarious  pursuits.  The  settlers  are  much  exasperated  & 
their  excited  visions  see  suspicious  conduct,  perhaps  where  there 
is  none.  To  be  rated  as  a  'horse  thief  it  is  sufficient  for  a  man 
to  'wear  good  clothes,  ride  a  good  horse,  have  some  money,  & 
not  work/  These  are  the  unfailing  prognostics  of  dishonesty." 
In  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  injury  done  by  the  Indians, 
Major  Woods  found  that  they  "do  but  little  &  aim  to  do  less 
positive  mischief,  but  frighten  back  new  settlers,  who  not  being 
accustomed  to  Indians  are  unwilling  to  go  into  a  country  where 
they  are.  .  .  .  That  the  presence  of  these  bands  retards  the 
settlements  is  doubtlessly  true  as  it  is  the  general  &  greatest 
grievance  complained  of."  Other  complaints  that  he  had  heard 
of  were  that  the  Indians  destroyed  timber,  killed  the  game, 
destroyed  surveyors'  land-marks,  and  that  they  were  dangerous 
men  when  they  were  "in  liquor."  Too  much  attention  should 
not  be  paid  to  petitions  coming  from  the  frontier,  Woods  stated, 
because  petitions  were  easily  gotten  up  and  were  "signed  readily 
without  the  signers  even  inquiring  into  the  nature  of  them."  It 
was  said  "that  there  were  two  classes  of  citizens  on  the  frontier, 
one  sells  liquor  to  the  Indians  watered  &  the  other  without 
water.  The  latter  class  are  sometimes  outdone  by  the  former  & 
make  complaints."  Major  Woods  reported  that  there  were 
about  400  to  600  Pottawattomies,  Foxes,  and  Winnebagoes  on 


INDIAN  PROBLEM 


IO3 


the  frontier  in  Iowa  and  that  most  of  the  Winnebagoes  had 
never  been  at  the  Crow  Wing  reservation.13 

When  Major  Woods  returned  to  Fort  Snelling  with  his 
report,  the  commanding  officer,  Lieutenant  Colonel  Loomis, 
reported  to  his  superior  at  St.  Louis  that  the  Indians  "seem  to 
be  so  peacefully  inclined  and  in  general  give  so  little  trouble 
and  withal  do  so  little  damage  that  I  do  not  think  a  winter 
campaign  called  for."14  He  recommended  that  dragoons  or 
mounted  infantry  be  sent  in  the  spring  to  remove  the  Indians 
to  their  reservation.  In  conformity  with  this  recommendation 
orders  were  issued,  February  28,  1850,  from  St.  Louis  for  Major 
Woods  to  take  a  company  of  the  First  Dragoons  stationed  at 
Fort  Gaines  and  two  companies  of  infantry  from  Fort  Snelling 
and  remove  the  Indians  from  Iowa.  The  dragoons  were  ordered 
to  proceed  from  Fort  Gaines  to  Fort  Snelling  on  April  9,  1850. 
This  plan  was  in  process  of  execution,  therefore,  when  the 
authorities  on  the  frontier  learned  of  the  contract  which  Rice 
had  made  with  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs. 

Rice  wrote  from  Washington  to  Governor  Ramsey,  March 
19,  1850,  informing  him  that  he  had  on  that  day  made  an  offer 
to  the  Indian  Department  to  remove  the  Winnebagoes,  but 
that  the  matter  would  be  referred  to  Ramsey  as  Superintendent 
of  Indians  in  Minnesota  Territory,  before  being  definitely 
acted  upon.  Rice  hoped  that  Ramsey  would  give  a  favorable 
reply  to  the  proposition,  and  he  asked  Ramsey  to  keep  the 
matter  secret  because  he  feared  that  efforts  would  be  made 
by  his  enemies  in  Minnesota,  if  they  heard  of  the  contract,  to 
cause  the  Indians  to  disperse  and  thus  cause  Rice  to  lose  heav- 
ily on  the  deal.15 

Sibley  heard  that  there  was  some  such  move  on  foot  and 
wrote  to  Ramsey  about  it  on  March  22,  1850.  "The  latest 
move  &  joke  of  the  season  is  the  offer  of  Rice  to  the  Indian 

13  Woods  kept  a  diary  of  his  trip  and  the  manuscript  is  in  the  Sibley  Papers. 

14  Loomis  to  Buell,  Oct.  23,  1849,  a  copy  of  which  is  in  the  Sibley  Papers. 

15  Rice  to  Ramsey,  Mar.  19,  1850,  in  Ramsey  Papers.  The  matter  was  never  referred  to 
Ramsey  as  Rice  thought  it  would  be,  and  Ramsey  did  not  favor  such  a  procedure. 


104  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

Office  to  remove  the  Winnebagoes  back  to  their  home  at  $75  per 
head  men,  women,  &  children.  I  am  assured  confidentially  that 
the  scheme  was  pressed  upon  the  Commissioner  seriatim  by 
Cochrane  the  clerk,  but  a  quietus  was  put  upon  it  by  D.  D. 
Mitchell,  who  told  the  former  if  such  a  plan  was  adopted  he 
would  protest  openly  against  it.  Did  you  ever  hear  of  such 
gross  impudence  as  is  manifested  in  this  proposition  ?" 

The  contract  was  entered  into,  on  April  13,  1850.16  Rice 
bound  himself  to  collect  the  scattered  Winnebagoes  and  remove 
them  to  Crow  Wing  during  the  year  1850,  to  furnish  the  Indians 
"with  ample  subsistence  of  a  suitable  and  acceptable  kind 
from  the  time  they  shall  be  collected  in  parties  or  otherwise 
for  removal,  until  their  arrival  in  their  aforsaid  country." 
Tents,  cooking  utensels,  blankets,  shoes,  and  other  articles  of  a 
like  nature  were  to  be  furnished  as  well  as  food.  Rice  was  also 
to  have  crops  planted  and  cultivated  before  the  arrival  of  the 
Indians  at  Crow  Wing.  In  return  for  this  service,  Rice  was  to 
receive  $70  per  head  for  those  Indians  who  had  never  gone  to 
Crow  Wing  or  who  had  left  that  reservation  with  the  intention 
of  not  returning  to  it  and  whom  Rice  should  succeed  in  getting 
back  to  the  reservation.  It  was  specifically  stated  that  it 
was  not  to  apply  to  and  payment  be  made  for  the  second  re- 
moval in  case  some  of  the  Indians  whom  Rice  took  back  in  1850 
should  thereafter  leave  the  reservation  again.  Rice  was  to 
furnish  Governor  Ramsey  with  "a  correct  list  or  roll  of  all  the 
said  Indians  who  reached  and  passed  St.  Paul,"  which  list 
Ramsey  was  to  verify  and  forward  to  the  Commissioner  of 
Indian  Affairs  and  was  to  be  made  the  basis  of  payment  under 
the  contract.17 

Sibley  had  not  been  consulted  by  the  Commissioner  and  he 
first  heard  of  the  contract  on  April  18.    His  consternation  may 

16  The  contract  along  with  other  documents  relating  to  it  was  published  in  the  Chronicle 
and  Register ;  July  8,  1850. 

17  David  Olmstead  had  been  appointed  by  Ramsey  to  check  the  roll  as  filed  by  Rice. 
Olmstead  was  about  the  only  man  who  was  well  enough  acquainted  with  the  Winnebagoes, 
except  Rice,  to  really  recognize  and  check  the  Indians  as  they  passed  St.  Paul.  Rice  took 
Olmstead  in  on  the  contract  with  himself  and  thus  left  Ramsey  "without  efficient  help."  Ramsey 
to  Sibley,  June  3,  1850. 


INDIAN  PROBLEM  IO5 

well  be  imagined.  On  the  following  day  he  wrote  his  "official 
protest"  which  he  filed  with  the  Commissioner,  and  asked  that 
the  contract  be  annulled  for  the  following  reasons:  "First,  it 
is  evident  that  the  Department  has  been  grossly  deceived  by 
Mr.  Rice  as  to  the  number  of  Indians  absent  from  their  own 
lands,  and  his  ability  to  perform  what  he  has  undertaken.  I 
have  received  information  which  leads  me  to  believe  that 
fully  one  half  of  the  whole  tribe  are  absent  from  the  spot  which 
the  Government  had  set  apart  for  their  dwelling  place.  Con- 
sequently when  Mr.  Rice  induced  the  Department  to  enter 
into  a  contract  with  him  upon  his  representation  that  there 
were  fully  a  thousand  or  twelve  hundred  he  practiced  a  decep- 
tion upon  it  which  fully  exonorates  it  from  any  obligation  to 
carry  out  the  contract."  In  the  second  place,  Sibley  claimed 
that  the  amount  to  be  paid  was  at  least  three  times  what  it 
should  be  if  any  contract  was  to  be  made.  Also  the  contract 
reflected  upon  the  Indian  officials,  including  Governor  Ramsey, 
and  would  bring  upon  them  "the  contempt  of  the  Indians." 
Sibley  believed  that  the  plan  already  in  process  of  execution 
on  the  frontier  was  the  proper  method  to  pursue,  not  only 
cheaper,  but  of  more  lasting  effects.  "Finally,"  he  said,  "I 
take  the  liberty  of  stating  my  opinion  that  the  present  scheme 
of  Mr.  Rice  is  derogatory  to  the  dignity  of  the  Government, 
which  should  be  able  to  manage  a  tribe  of  vagabond  Indians 
without  counting  on  the  support  and  supposed  influence  of  any 
individual  in  carrying  out  its  designs.  Why  I  was  not  con- 
sulted. ...  I  am  at  a  loss  to  decide.  I  was  present  at  the 
Indian  office  for  more  than  two  hours  on  the  13th  inst.,  the 
day  on  which  the  contract  was  signed  and,  although  the  sub- 
ject of  the  removal  of  the  Winnebagoes  was  discussed  and  Gov- 
ernor Ramsey's  official  dispatch  read  to  me  by  yourself  in  the 
presence  of  Colonel  Mitchell,  Mr.  Rice  also  being  present  in 
the  office,  I  did  not  receive  a  single  intimation  that  a  measure 
of  so  much  importance  as  the  contract  alluded  to  was  to  be 
consumated,  or  I  should  have  protested  against  it  on  the  spot. 
This  apparent  studied  concealment  I  deem  to  be  on  my  part  a 


Io6  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

just  subject  of  complaint."  Sibley  stated  that  he  was  satisfied 
"that  other  persons  than  Mr.  Rice,  who  I  learn  were  active  in 
urging  this  measure  upon  the  Department,  are  more  or  less 
pecuniarily  interested  in  the  success  of  his  contract. " 

On  April  20,  Sibley  wrote  to  Ramsey  giving  his  opinion  as 
to  the  inside  working  of  the  Indian  Department  by  which  Rice 
was  able  to  get  such  a  contract.  "This  iniquitous  scheme,,,  he 
wrote,  "was  concocted  while  I  was  confined  to  my  room  some 
twenty  days  with  inflamation  of  the  eye.  ...  I  have  no 
doubt  Cochrane  persuaded  Brown  to  sign  the  contract,  and  I 
firmly  believe  him  to  be  one  of  the  worthy  trio  who  are  to 
profit  by  the  arrangement.  I  told  Brown  that  I  would  have 
undertaken  the  service  for  $20  per  head,  if  disposed  to  meddle 
with  that  sort  of  business,  but  I  really  believed  the  system  of 
private  contracts  for  such  objects  to  be  dishonorable  to  the 
Government.  .  .  .  Between  ourselves,  Brown  is  utterly  out 
of  his  element  in  the  Indian  Office.  He  has  neither  industry 
nor  any  knowledge  of  Indian  Affairs,  and  is  very  easily  duped. 
As  for  Cochrane^  I  have  no  faith  in  him."18 

Colonel  A.  M.  Mitchell,  the  Whig  Marshall  of  Minnesota 
Territory,  who  was  with  Rice  in  Washington  and  who  was  to 
be  a  candidate  for  delegate  against  Sibley  during  the  summer 
of  that  same  year,  wrote  to  Ramsey  on  April  23  that  Sibley 
had  filed  his  "official  protest,"  but  that  it  would  be  disregarded. 
"I  have  thought,"  he  wrote,  "that  I  would  inform  you  that  the 
government  pays  no  attention  to  his  Protest,  but  look  upon 
it  as  consumate  presumption.  ...  It  is  true  that  Mr.  S.  was 
not  consulted  because  they  supposed  his  opinions  of  no  impor- 
tance and  could  or  would  not  shed  any  light  on  the  subject." 

Brown  replied  to  Sibley's  protest  on  April  25,  1850,  and  said 
that  Sibley  was  not  consulted  before  the  contract  was  made 
because  the  matter  was  to  affect  Iowa  and  Wisconsin  and  that 
Minnesota  had  no  cause  of  complaint.  He  affirmed  that  there 
was  no  cause  for  concealment  and  no  reason  for  wishing  to 

18  Cochrane  was  a  clerk  in  Brown's  office. 


INDIAN  PROBLEM  IO7 

keep  Sibley  ignorant  of  it.  Brown  believed  that  the  Indians 
should  be  removed  without  the  use  of  dragoons.  The  contract 
was,  he  said,  "in  design  one  of  humanity— such  as  has  been  too 
seldom  practiced  against  the  Indians."  Brown  stated  that  he 
had  conferred  with  Senator  Jones,  of  Iowa,  Colonel  Mitchell, 
and  others,  and  that  they  had  thought  the  price  not  exorbitant. 
"I  was  therefore  upon  such  representations  warranted  in  con- 
tracting with  him.  Indeed,  the  impression  made  by  these 
gentlemen  was  that  he  was  the  only  man  whose  influence  with 
the  Indians  was  such  as  to  enable  him  to  effect  what  was  pro- 
posed." Brown  insisted  that  the  Indian  Office  had  never  dis- 
trusted Governor  Ramsey  and  meant  nothing  disrespectful  to 
him  by  taking  the  matter  out  of  his  hands  and  giving  it  to 
Rice.  "The  contract,"  he  concluded,  "whether  wise  or  not 
is  a  binding  contract,  and  not  subject  to  repeal,  even  if  I 
desired  to  do  so,  which  I  do  not." 

Orlando  Brown  seems  to  have  been  a  well-meaning  Com- 
missioner of  Indian  Affairs,  but  he  was  a  man  who  did  not 
know  the  details  of  the  business  which  he  was  supposed  to  direct. 
He  seems  also  to  have  been  easily  influenced  by  his  subordi- 
nates, some  of  whom  were  doubtless  interested  in  some  way 
in  getting  the  contract  for  Rice.  The  whole  affair  would  prob- 
ably be  called  a  case  of  "graft"  in  later  terminology,  but  no 
suspicion  was  ever  attached  to  Orlando  Brown  in  this  respect.19 
The  worst  that  can  be  said  of  him  is  that  he  was  led  by  men 
whom  he  trusted,  but  who  were  not  entirely  reliable,  to  make 
the  contract. 

The  newspapers  of  Minnesota  did  not  oppose  the  contract 
when  its  existence  first  became  known.  The  Pioneer  of  May  9, 
1850,  announced  it  in  the  following  words:  "Mr.  H.  M.  Rice, 
of  St.  Paul,  has  taken  a  contract  from  the  Government  to 
remove  the  Winnebago  Indians  back  again  to  their  proper 

19  An  idea  of  the  reasonableness  of  the  price  paid  to  Rice  may  be  formed  by  comparing  it 
with  a  contract  which  Major  Woods  made  with  A.  D.  Stephens  for  the  removal  of  the  Fox  and 
other  tribes  in  Iowa  "to  their  homes  west  of  the  Missouri."  Stephens  was  to  be  paid  $3.50  for 
each  male  and  female  transported,  with  an  allowance  of  $500  for  provisions. 


108  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

limits  near  Crow  Wing,  at  so  much  per  head.  This  will  save 
much  expense  of  equipping  and  marching  troops."  The 
Chronicle  and  Register  of  May  1 1,  1850,  said:  "Mr.  Rice  has  the 
business  talent  and  energy  to  accomplish  it,  and  we  are  told 
by  those  better  acquainted  than  ourselves  with  such  matters, 
that  the  compensation  is  very  liberal/'  Dr.  Potts  wrote  to 
Sibley  on  June  1,  1850,  giving  another  view  of  it.  He  said  that 
a  copy  of  the  St.  Louis  Union  of  May  25,  containing  a  long 
article  on  the  contract  and  denouncing  the  Whig  administration 
as  a  "rotten  concern"  had  caused  Minnesota  Whigs  who  did 
not  like  the  contract  to  feel  called  upon  to  defend  the  adminis- 
tration and  hence  say  little  about  it.20  Others"  said  that  it 
would  have  been  so  much  the  better  if  Rice  got  $1,000  per  head 
instead  of  $70,  since  he  would  leave  the  money  in  the  country 
while  if  the  fur  company  had  gotten  the  contract  the  money 
would  have  been  taken  out  of  the  Territory.  Such  individuals 
said  that  "all  the  fuss  has  been  raised  because  the  Fur  Company 
did  not  get  it."  The  Chronicle  and  Register  of  June  10,  1850, 
said  that  the  matter  resolved  itself  into  a  fight  between  Pierre 
Choteau  &  Company  and  Rice — "a  personal  quarrel  between 
two  rival  parties  of  Indian  traders — one  party  wanted  the 
contract — the  other  got  it." 

Sibley  honestly  believed  that  a  fraud  was  being  committed 
against  the  Government  and  that  the  price  paid  Rice  was  far 
greater  than  it  should  have  been.  He  would  have  opposed 
any  such  contract  with  any  one,  but  he  was,  of  course,  deter- 
mined against  this  one,  since  the  beneficiary  was  his  most  bitter 
personal  and  political  enemy.  He  did  everything  in  his  power 
to  have  the  contract  anulled,  even  taking  the  matter  to  the 
President,21  and,  when  that  failed,  he  caused  a  Congressional 
investigation  to  be  made.  This  investigation  dragged  on  during 
most  of  the  summer  of  1850  and,  in  the  meantime,  Brown 
resigned  his  office  and  was  succeeded  by  Luke  Lea.22   In  the  end, 

20  The  article  in  the  St.  Louis  Union  denouncing  the  contract  as  gross  fraud  and  con- 
demning the  administration  for  making  it  was  no  doubt  inspired  by  the  Choteau  fur  company. 

21  Sibley  to  Ramsey,  May  18,  1850,  in  Ramsey  Papers. 

22  Sibley  to  Ramsey,  May  30,  1850,  in  Ramsey  Papers. 


INDIAN  PROBLEM 


IO9 


the  Committee  reported  against  rescinding  the  contract  and 
Sibley  failed  in  his  struggle  to  prevent  Rice  from  carrying  it 
out.  "I  suppose  Rice  will  claim  a  victory  over  me,"  Sibley 
wrote  to  Ramsey  on  June  26,  "but  he  has  in  reality  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  result  except  so  far  as  his  friend  Jones  operated 
to  throw  cold  water  upon  the  democratic  members  of  the  Com- 
mittee, which  I  must  do  him  the  justice  to  say  he  did  most 
actively."  Sibley  had  been  at  a  disadvantage  in  not  using 
private  letters  from  Ramsey  and  others  as  evidence,  without 
having  their  permission  to  do  so,  and  by  not  having  time  to 
get  additional  evidence  from  Minnesota.  Morever,  the  burden 
of  proof  had  been  upon  him.  He  was  greatly  disappointed  at 
the  outcome,  but  two  points  gave  him  some  encouragement. 
Orlando  Brown  was  succeeded  by  a  man  in  whom  he  had  the 
utmost  confidence,  and  the  whole  affair  convinced  the  authori- 
ties at  Washington  that  greater  reliance  should  be  placed  on 
Governor  Ramsey  as  ex-officio  Superintendent  of  Indians  in 
Minnesota.23  The  total  amount  paid  under  the  contract  was 
$24,33o.72.24  The  fact  that  the  amount  was  no  larger  seems 
to  have  been  a  reason  why  the  contract  was  not  rescinded 
after  the  matter  had  been  so  vigorously  protested  by  Sibley. 
The  point  which  hurt  Sibley  most  was  the  way  it  was  interpreted 
in  Minnesota  as  a  test  of  political  strength  between  himself 
and  Rice.25 

(C)  The  Sioux  Treaties  of  1851 
With  the  title  of  nine-tenths  of  the  soil  of  Minnesota  still 
in  the  hands  of  the  Indians,  it  was  evident  that  other  treaties 
with  them  were  necessary  if  the  young  territory  was  to  have 
even  normal  growth.26  Consequently,  the  pioneers  began  to 
demand  treaties  with  the  Sioux  and  Chippewas  almost  as  soon 
as  Minnesota  Territory  was  organized.27     Goodhue,  in  the 

23  Sibley  to  Ramsey,  June  20  and  July  26,  1850,  in  Ramsey  Papers. 

24  Congressional  Globe,  32  Cong.  2  Sess.  1080. 

25  Folwell,  Minnesota,  /oj. 

26  The  early  settlers  recognized  that  the  land  west  of  the  Mississippi  must  be  acquired  or 
Minnesota  would  remain  "a  dwarfed  and  blighted  Territory  for  years."    Pioneer,  Dec.  25,  1851. 

87  Ramsey  asked  the  first  territorial  legislature  to  memorialize  Congress  for  a  treaty  with 
the  Sioux  and  this  was  done.    Journal  oj  the  Council  of  Minnesota  Territory,  1 849, 1 10. 


IIO  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

Pioneer,  reflected  the  typical  attitude  of  the  settlers  when  he 
stated  that  the  Sioux  would  have  to  go  and  "the  sooner  the 
better."28  The  Indians  themselves  were  ready  to  treat  in 
1 85 1  because  the  growing  scarcity  of  game  was  causing  much 
hardship  and  suffering  among  them  and  they  were  anxious  to 
get  annuities  from  the  government.  The  traders  were  anxious 
for  a  treaty  because  they  recognized  that  the  fur  traders'  fron- 
tier was  passing  from  Minnesota  and  they  were  anxious  to  have 
a  settlement  of  their  Indian  credits  which,  because  of  the  desti- 
tution of  the  Indians,  were  growing  larger  and  larger,  and  the 
prospects  of  settlement  by  the  Indians  themselves  was  growing 
less.29  Things  were  favorable,  therefore,  for  the  negotiation  of 
other  treaties  and  this  was  accomplished  in  1851. 

The  negotiation  of  an  Indian  treaty  was  a  great  event  in 
frontier  history  and  there  was  a  general  scramble  among  the 
traders  to  get  "the  spoils. "  The  influence  of  the  traders  and 
half-breeds  had  to  be  taken  into  consideration  if  any  success 
was  to  come  from  the  negotiations,  for  if  these  two  influences 
were  thrown  against  the  making  of  a  treaty  the  commissioners 
were  doomed  to  failure.  This  raises  the  whole  question  of  the 
justice  of  the  traders'  claims. 

Since  practically  all  of  the  Indian  trade  was  carried  on  by 
credit  extended  to  the  Indians  in  the  fall  with  the  promise  of 
payment  in  the  spring  when  the  winter's  supply  of  furs  had  been 
brought  in,  it  is  an  unquestionable  fact  that  many  of  the  traders' 
accounts  against  the  Indians  were  not  paid  in  full.  As  has  been 
shown  in  a  previous  chapter,  certain  of  these  accounts  were 
carried  year  after  year  on  the  books  of  the  American  Fur  Com- 
pany, and  the  same  was  probably  true  of  other  traders.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  has  also  been  shown  that  the  goods  were  sold 
to  the  Indians  at  a  profit  of  75%  to  100%  or  even  higher.  As 
with  modern  business  men  doing  a  credit  business,  the  selling 

28  Pioneer,  Feb.  13, 1850.  Franklin  Steele  wrote  to  Sibley  that  "the  population  of  Minne- 
sota will  not  remain  cooped  up  between  the  St.  Croix  and  the  Mississippi  and  will  push  west  in 
spite  of  troops,  Indians,  or  any  other  obstacles,"  Steele  to  Sibley,  Feb.  18,  1851. 

29  McLeod,  a  trader,  wrote  to  Sibley,  April  10,  1851,  that  his  credits  for  that  year  would 
be  between  $4,000  and  $5,000  and  that  the  Indians  would  not  settle  for  more  than  half  of  it. 


INDIAN  PROBLEM  III 

price  of  goods  was  doubtless  placed  high  partly  to  cover  possible 
loss  on  bad  accounts.  There  is  no  question  that  the  trader 
assumed  considerable  risk,  since  he  bought  his  goods  on  credit 
and,  in  turn,  extended  credit  to  the  Indians,  and  had  to  depend 
for  the  sale  of  his  furs  on  a  future  market  where  prices  could 
not  be  definitely  determined.  For  these  reasons  he  could  be 
justified,  according  to  modern  business  methods,  in  charging  a 
higher  price  for  his  goods  than  if  the  transaction  had  been  on  a 
cash  basis.  When  an  Indian  treaty  was  to  be  negotiated,  how- 
ever, all  of  these  old  accounts  against  individual  Indians,  many 
of  them  running  back  for  several  years,  were  presented  by  the 
traders  as  a  charge  against  the  whole  tribe.  Some  of  these 
accounts  were  no  doubt  accurate  and  many  of  them  were  prob- 
ably "padded."  It  will  never  be  possible  to  analyze  these 
accounts  and  determine  with  even  an  approximate  accuracy 
just  how  much  the  Indians  were  defrauded  at  the  making  of  a 
treaty.  The  total  of  all  the  claims  against  the  Indians  greatly 
exceeded  the  amount  set  aside  for  the  payment  of  their  "just 
debts,"  and  negotiations  among  the  traders  themselves  were 
necessary  in  order  to  determine  how  much  of  the  "spoils" 
should  go  to  each  trader.  This  would  have  a  tendency  to 
cause  dishonest  traders  to  "pad"  their  accounts  with  the  hope 
that  after  the  adjustment  of  claims  had  been  made  they  would 
get  all  that  was  coming  to  them.  Some  claims  were  not 
allowed  in  this  adjustment  and  the  dissatisfied  traders  were 
ready  to  oppose  the  ratification  of  the  treaty,  and  even  to  stir 
up  dissatisfaction  among  the  Indians  themselves.  The  half- 
breeds  also  had  to  be  satisfied  out  of  the  "spoils,"  or  they  would 
use  their  influence  with  the  Indians  to  prevent  the  success  of 
the  negotiations.  These  two  influences  must  be  clearly  recog- 
nized in  order  to  appreciate  the  difficulties  under  which  Com- 
missioners worked  who  carried  on  the  negotiations.30    The  Sioux 


30  In  1849  Ramsey  and  Chambers  had  attempted  to  negotiate  a  treaty  with  the  Sioux  and 
failed  largely  because  their  instructions  were  too  strict  to  permit  them  to  meet  the  opposition 
of  these  two  influences. 


112  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

treaties  of  185 1  were  no  doubt  typical  of  what  happened  over 
and  over  again  in  the  history  of  the  frontier. 

The  appointment  of  Commissioners  to  negotiate  the  treaty 
was  all-important  from  the  stand  point  of  the  traders.  Sibley 
worked  hard  and  long  to  get  Hugh  Tyler  appointed  Commis- 
sioner with  Ramsey  to  negotiate  the  Sious  treaties,  but  his 
efforts  were  in  vain.  Thompson,  of  Indiana,  was  appointed  in 
December,  1850,  in  spite  of  Sibley's  opposition  to  him.  Tyler 
failed  to  get  the  appointment,  so  Sibley  wrote  to  Ramsey,  by 
his  "too  great  impetuosity  ...  in  repelling  the  insinuation 
that  we  were  banded  together  to  compass  certain  ends  of  our 
own."  The  Indian  appropriation  bill,  however,  passed  during 
this  session  of  Congress,  contained  a  provision  that  all  com- 
missioners to  negotiate  Indian  treaties  after  the  passage  of  the 
act  should  be  selected  from  the  officers  or  agents  of  the  Indian 
Department.  In  this  way  it  happened  that  Luke  Lea  himself 
became  commissioner,  jointly  with  Ramsey,  who  as  Governor 
was  ex-officio  Superintendent  of  Indians  in  Minnesota,  to  nego- 
tiate the  treaties. 

Ramsey,  in  a  communication  to  the  Commissioner  of  Indian 
Affairs,  had  expressed  the  hope,  while  it  was  yet  thought  that 
Thompson  would  be  one  of  the  commissioners  and  he  the  other, 
that  the  instructions  issued  to  them  should  be  explicit  on  the 
subject  of  Indian  debts  to  the  traders.  This  called  forth  the 
following  protest  from  Sibley:  "By  the  by  (remember  this  is 
confidential)  while  I  am  working  for  you  individually,  as  well 
as  for  the  Territory,  here,  and  bringing  up  all  my  forces  to  sus- 
tain you,  I  do  not  like  to  have  you  suggest  to  the  Commr.  that 
you  hope  he  will  restrict  the  Commrs.  on  the  subject  of  debts 
in  making  the  treaties  above,  so  that  little  or  no  discretion  will 
be  left  them,  as  otherwise  the  traders  who  control  the  Indians 
will  'exact  the  last  penny.'  Now  I  do  not  believe,  in  fact  know, 
you  did  not  wish  it  to  be  understood  as  thereby  desiring  that 
the  just  claims  should  not  be  paid,  but  the  communication  is 
susceptible  of  such  construction,  and  the  instructions  may  be 
so  framed  as  to  forbid  you  to  make  any  allowances.     This 


INDIAN  PROBLEM  113 

would  be  in  effect  not  only  to  commit  a  gross  injustice  towards 
men  who  impoverished  themselves  in  supplying  the  Indians, 
after  20  or  30  years  of  labor  and  exposure,  but  it  would  neces- 
sarily result  in  the  failure  of  any  attempt  to  treat.  .  .  .  We 
ask  no  aid  from  the  Government  but  we  do  ask  that  the  Indians 
shall  not  be  precluded  from  paying  their  just  debts  if  they  wish 
to  do  so."  "It  should  be  bourne  in  mind,"  he  wrote  on  another 
occasion,  "that  only  one  division  of  the  Sioux  ever  paid  a  cent 
of  their  debts,  the  Mindayuakantons  having  done  so  up  to 
1837.    The  upper  bands  have  never  treated  hitherto."31 

Three  treaties  were  negotiated  with  the  Indians  of  Minne- 
sota in  1 85 1,  two  with  the  Sioux  and  one  with  the  Chippewas, 
the  last  named  of  which  was  not  ratified  by  the  Senate.  The 
negotiations  with  the  upper  bands  of  Sioux,  which  were  taken 
up  first  because  they  were  thought  to  be  more  favorable  to 
making  a  treaty,  were  carried  on  at  Traverse  des  Sioux.  The 
treaty  with  the  lower  Sioux  was  made  later  in  the  same  year 
at  Mendota,  and  the  treaty  with  the  Chippewas  was  nego- 
tiated at  Pembina.  In  the  treaty  of  Traverse  des  Sioux  the 
upper  Sioux  Indians  agreed  to  give  up  all  their  claims  to  lands 
east  of  Red  River  of  the  North,  Lake  Travers,  and  the  Big 
Sioux  River,  except  a  reservation  along  the  Minnesota  river, 
ten  miles  on  each  side  of  the  river,  from  Lake  Travers  to  the 
Yellow  Medicine  river.  In  return  for  this  cession  of  land, 
the  Indians  were  to  be  paid  $1,665,000.  Of  this  amount, 
$1,360,000  was  to  be  held  in  trust  by  the  United  States  and 
interest  at  5%  per  annum  paid  to  the  Indians  for  fifty  years, 
which  was  to  be  considered  "full  payment  of  said  balance, 
principal  and  interest."  It  was  provided  that  certain  sums 
should  go  into  the  "civilization  fund"and  the  "educational  fund" 
and  that  the  sum  of  $275,000  was  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of 
paying  the  expenses  of  removing  the  Indians  to  their  new 
reservation,  for  their  subsistence  there  during  the  first  year, 
and  to  "enable  them  to  settle  their  affairs  and  comply  with  their 

31  Sibley  to  Ramsey,  Feb.  9,  1851,  and  March  SI,  185 t,  in  Ramsey  Papers. 


114  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

present  just  engagements."  This  meant,  of  course,  the  traders' 
claims,  and  was  "to  be  paid  to  the  chiefs  in  such  manner  as 
they  hereafter  in  open  council  shall  request." 

As  the  Indian  chiefs  signed  the  treaty,  by  mark,  they  were 
led  to  another  place  and  asked  to  sign  another  document  which 
is  known  in  Minnesota  history  as  the  "traders'  paper,"  but 
which  the  Indians  thought  (so  they  later  claimed)  was  a  dupli- 
cate copy  of  the  treaty.  The  most  important  parts  of  this 
document  were  as  follows:  "We  the  undersigned  Chiefs,  Sol- 
diers and  Braves  of  the  Wahpaton  &  Sisseton  Bands  of  Sioux 
Indians,  having  this  day  concluded  a  treaty  with  Luke  Lea  and 
Alexander  Ramsey  .  .  .  and  being  desirous  to  pay  our  Traders 
and  Half-breeds  the  sums  of  money  which  we  acknowledge  to 
be  justly  due  to  them,  do  hereby  obligate  and  bind  ourselves, 
as  the  representatives  of  the  aforesaid  Bands,  to  pay  to  the 
individuals  hereinafter  designated,  the  sums  of  money  set 
opposite  their  respective  names  ...  and  as  it  is  specified 
that  said  sum  shall  be  paid  in  such  manner  as  requested  by  the 
Chiefs  in  open  council  thereafter,  we  do  hereby  in  open  council 
request  and  desire  that  the  said  sums  below  specified  shall  be 
paid  to  the  persons  designated.  .  .  .  and  for  this  payment 
well  &  truly  to  be  made  we  here  by  solemnly  pledge  ourselves 
and  the  faith  of  our  nation.   .  .   ." 

This  paper  was  not  read  or  explained  to  the  Indians  at  the 
time  of  signing  it  and  the  evidence  is  not  conclusive  that  its 
contents  were  explained  to  them  at  that  time.32  It  is  certain, 
however,  that  the  Indians  were  told  that  part  of  the  $275,000 
was  for  the  purpose  of  paying  their  debts  to  the  traders.33  Since 
the  Indians  signed  the  traders'  papers  immediately  after  signing 
the  treaty,  there  was  no  opportunity  for  an  open  council  unless  it 

32  J.  R.  Brown  and  Martin  McLeod,  two  of  the  traders,  both  testified  before  the  Com- 
mittee that  investigated  the  matter  that  the  paper  was  explained  to  the  chiefs  before  they  signed 
it.    Senate  Document,  61,  pp.  42,  219,  245. 

33  S.  R.  Riggs,  a  missionary  and  a  witness  to  the  paper  wrote:  "I  was  not  present  at  any 
meeting  of  half-breeds  and  those  engaged  in  the  trade  held  for  the  purpose  of  adjusting  matters 
among  themselves.  .  .  .  But  everywhere,  on  all  occasions,  and  at  all  our  meetings  with  the  princi- 
pal Dakota  men.  .  .  .  I  told  them  plainly,  and  heard  others  tell  them  that  the  $275,000  was  intended 
among  other  things  to  enable  them  to  pay  their  just  debts.    Riggs  to  Sibley,  Jan.  16,  1852. 


INDIAN  PROBLEM  115 

be  considered  that  they  were  in  open  council  at  the  time  of  the 
signing  of  the  treaty  and  in  that  same  open  council  directed 
that  the  money  be  paid  to  the  traders,  thus  technically  meeting 
the  requirements  of  the  treaty  that  the  money  would  be  paid 
"in  such  manner  as  they  hereafter  in  open  council  shall  request." 
To  an  unbiased  observer  today  it  looks  decidedly  like  the  white 
man  was  not  dealing  fairly  with  the  Indian. 

Since  the  total  amount  of  the  claims  presented  by  the  traders 
was  greater  than  the  amount  of  money  available  to  pay  the 
"just  debts"  of  the  Indians,  it  required  considerable  bargaining 
among  the  traders  themselves  to  adjust  the  claims  and  find 
out  what  the  "just  debts"  really  were.  The  names  of  the 
traders  to  receive  payment  and  the  amount  to  be  paid  each  were 
not  affixed  to  the  traders''  paper  until  the  next  morning.34  In 
the  meantime  the  traders  adjusted  the  claims  among  them- 
selves. A  committee  of  three  representing  the  traders,  Martin 
McLeod,  Joseph  R.  Brown,  and  Louis  Roberts,  and  Sibley, 
representing  the  half-breeds,  made  the  adjustment.  They  did 
not  examine  books  or  compel  the  traders  to  make  their  state- 
ments under  oath,35  and  the  schedule  of  claims  as  affixed  to 
the  traders'  paper  was  probably  not  submitted  to  the  chiefs.36 
This  paper  provided  that  $209,200  should  go  to  the  traders, 
$800  to  S.  R.  Riggs  for  the  American  Board  of  Missions,  and 
$40,000  to  the  half-breeds,  making  a  total  of  $250,000  out  of 
the  $275,000.  The  half-breeds  received  $250  each,  some  of  this 
money  going  to  the  half-breed  children  of  some  of  the  prominent 
traders. 

The  treaty  with  the  lower  Sioux,  made  at  Mendota,  was 
similar  to  the  treaty  of  Traverse  des  Sioux,  except  the  amount  of 
money  was  different.  The  traders  and  half-breeds  were  pro- 
vided for  and  there  was  a  similar  adjustment  of  traders'  claims.37 

34  Testimony  of  McLeod  before  the  investigating  committee.    Senate  Doc.  61,  227. 

35  Ibid,  115,233. 

36  Testimony  of  Sibley:  "I  do  not  know  that  the  sums  thus  apportioned  were  submitted 
to  the  chiefs."    Senate  Document,  61,  p.  219. 

37  Sibley  received  $1,000  for  his  half-breed  daughter  under  this  treaty  and  invested  it  in 
an  Iron  Mountain  Railroad  bond.  This  account  is  in  his  ledger  which  is  in  the  Minnesota 
Historical  Society  library. 


Il6  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

The  treaty  with  the  Chippewas  was  made  at  Pembina  and  much 
the  same  methods  were  used  there.  The  traders  at  that  place 
were  anxious  to  keep  outsiders  away  so  that  they  could  get  the 
"spoils."  In  a  letter  from  Pembina  to  Fred  Sibley,  N.  W.  Kitt- 
son stated  that  they  wanted  no  "loafers"  to  come  to  Pembina 
and  that  he  thought  Ramsey  "should  give  the  Pembinese  a 
chance  at  the  spoils."38  He  stated  further  that  if  they  did  come 
the  traders  at  Pembina  would  make  it  so  unpleasant  for  them 
that  they  would  not  want  a  second  trip.  On  September  23, 
1 85 1,  Kittson  wrote  that  the  treaty  had  been  made  "after  the 
usual  squabbling  and  manouvering,"  that  it  had  been  impos- 
sible, of  course,  to  satisfy  everybody,  the  half-breed  settlement 
causing  the  most  trouble,  but  that  all  unpleasant  feelings  would 
soon  be  forgotten  and  that  the  results  of  the  treaty  would  be 
very  beneficial.  This  treaty  was  later  rejected  by  the  United 
States  Senate. 

Great  opposition  was  shown  in  the  Senate  to  the  ratification 
of  the  two  Sioux  treaties39  and  great  dissatisfaction  was  in 
evidence  among  the  Indians  themselves  over  the  payment  of 
their  "just  debts."  This  dissatisfaction  led  to  considerable 
trouble  at  the  time  of  payment  to  the  upper  Sioux,  most  of 
which  was  stirred  up  by  Madison  Sweetser  who  seems  to  have 
been  the  tool  of  other  men  who  did  not  share  in  the  spoils  and 
who  hoped  to  profit  by  blackmailing  the  traders  whose  claims 
were  allowed.40  When  the  time  came  for  payment  under  the 
treaties  the  chiefs  demanded  that  the  amount  for  the  settlement 
of  their  "present  engagements"  be  paid  to  them  and  be  disposed 
of  in  open  council.  Ramsey,  who  had  been  appointed  disbursing 
agent,  held  them  to  the  terms  of  the  traders'  paper,  however, 

38  Kittson  to  Fred  Sibley,  July  25,  1851,  in  Sibley  Papers. 

39  "It  was  not  any  allegation  of  fraud  and  deceit  which  formed  the  ground  of  this  opposi- 
tion. It  came  from  Southern  Senators  not  willing  to  extend  the  area  of  settlement  to  the  north, 
on  which  to  build  another  free  State."    Folwell,  Minnesota,  98. 

40  "My  brother  writes  me  that  Sweetser,  under  the  effective  tuition  of  the  Ewings  &  Rice 
combine,  is  doing  all  he  can  to  persuade  the  Indians  to  declare  their  obligations  to  us  null  & 
void,  and  to  induce  them  to  give  him  a  power  of  attorney  to  act  for  them  in  defrauding  us  of 
our  just  dues.  This  is  but  another  phase  in  the  history  of  the  gigantic  schemes  of  fraud  in  which 
these  noted  individuals  are  concerned."    Sibley  to  Ramsey,  Dec.  26,  1 851,  in  Ramsey  Papers. 


INDIAN  PROBLEM  117 

and  settlement  was  made  accordingly.  For  this  action  Ramsey 
was  severely  criticised  in  Minnesota  by  persons  not  financially 
benefitted  by  the  arrangement. 

As  early  as  January,  1852,  Ramsey  asked  Sibley  to  bring 
about  an  investigation  of  his  conduct  in  connection  with  the 
treaties,41  but  the  investigation  did  not  materialize  until  1853. 
A  Senate  committee  was  then  appointed  and  it  examined  a  few 
witnesses,  but  reported  to  the  Senate  that  no  conclusion  had 
been  reached.  The  Senate  then  authorized  the  President  to 
appoint  a  committee  to  go  to  Minnesota  and  examine  witnes- 
ses. President  Pierce  appointed  Judge  R.  M.  Young,  of  Illinois, 
and  W.  A.  Gorman,  the  new  Democratic  Governor  of  Minne- 
sota Territory,  to  make  the  investigation.  Judge  Young  ex- 
amined witnesses  at  St.  Paul  during  the  late  summer  of  1 853  and 
made  a  lengthy  report  which  was  finally  sent  to  the  Senate. 
This  report  contained  several  criticisms  of  Ramsey's  part  in 
the  disbursement  of  the  money,  but  the  Senate  finally  decided 
that  the  charges  against  him  had  not  been  sustained,  and  that 
the  Senate  considered  his  action  highly  meritorious  and  proper.42 

The  investigation  seemed  to  implicate  Sibley  in  the  ques- 
tionable conduct  charged  in  connection  with  the  treaties.  An 
article  which  appeared  in  the  Washington  Evening  Star  caused 
Sibley  to  write  to  Governor  Gorman  asking  if  there  was  any- 
thing in  the  report  made  by  him  and  Judge  Young  which  was 
sufficient  ground  for  such  implication.  To  this  inquiry  Gover- 
nor Gorman  made  the  following  reply:  "I  received  your  note 
of  today  calling  my  attention  to  an  article  in  the  "Evening 
Star,"  of  Washington,  which  says  that  the  report  of  Judge 


41  "In  the  complication  of  politics  here,  the  strong  personal  animosity  that  pervades 
society — I  look  for  such  insinuations  (speculations  &c).  I  should  be  rather  simple  did  I  expect 
to  fare  better  than  others  have  done  before  me  in  administering  the  affairs  of  a  frontier  country. 
All  I  can  do  is  to  preserve  my  hands  unspotted — and  I  will  esteem  it  a  favor  should  the  thing  be 
breathed  again,  if  you  would  say  to  these  at  Washington  that  I  would  esteem  it  a  favor,  whenever 
the  charge  comes  from  a  responsible  source,  for  them  to  institute  an  investigation.  These  things 
might  be  mortifying  but  a  moments  consideration  teaches  me  that  'if  I  will  live  in  the  midst  of 
this  kind  of  population  it  is  folly  to  complain  of  any  consequences."  Ramsey  to  Sibley,  Jan.  14, 
1851,  (52). 

42  Senate  Journal,  23  Cong.  1  Sess.  211. 


1 1  8  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

Young  upon  the  charges  preferred  against  Ex.  Gov.  Ramsey 
seriously  implicates  you  and  you  desire  me  to  say  as  one  of  the 
Commissioners  who  investigated  said  charges  whether  it  is 
true  that  our  Report  'Seriously  implicates'  you.  In  reply  I 
have  to  say  that  I  am  not  aware  of  any  thing  in  that  report 
which  implicates  you  or  was  intended  to  'Seriously  implicate' 
you.  Nor  was  there  anything  proven  on  the  investigation  that 
would  justify  us  in  making  such  report."43 

The  chief  significance  of  this  whole  affair  is  that  it  illustrates 
the  defect  in  the  government's  policy  of  regarding  the  Indian 
tribes  as  "nations"  with  which  it  would  make  treaties,  since 
the  methods  employed  in  connection  with  these  treaties  were 
not  unlike  those  used  in  other  instances.  If  the  method  does 
not  seem  to  reflect  credit  upon  the  men  involved,  it  should  be 
remembered  that  standards  of  honesty  and  morality  change 
with  time  and  that  it  is  not  always  fair  to  judge  men  of  one 
generation  by  standards  of  later  times  when  the  public  con- 
science has  become  somewhat  more  keen  on  the  conduct  of 
public  officials.  It  was  inevitable  that  the  Indians  should  be 
forced  to  give  up  the  title  to  the  lands  in  Minnesota,  as  else- 
where, and,  as  has  been  shown,  no  treaty  could  be  negotiated 
unless  the  traders  and  half-breeds  were  favorable  to  it.  "Such 
aid  could  be  had  only  by  paying  for  it.  The  device  of  allowing 
Indians  to  stipulate  in  treaties  for  the  payment  to  traders  of 
debts  due  them  from  individual  Indians,  as  if  they  were  tribal 
obligations,  had  long  been  practiced.  But  for  the  machinations 
of  disgruntled  parties  desirous  of  being  taken  into  the  happy 
circle  of  beneficiaries,  the  scheme  might  have  worked  as  quietly 
and  comfortable  as  usual.  An  old  interpreter  says  of  these 
treaties  that  'they  were  as  fair  as  any  Indian  treaties.'  "44  That 
the  public  of  that  day  approved  the  action  of  the  men  who 
made  the  treaties  is  shown  by  the  future  public  careers  of  both 
Ramsey  and  Sibley.45    This  whole  matter  was  significant  also 

43  Gorman  to  Sibley,  Feb.  15,  1854. 

44  Folwell,  Minnesota,  101-102. 

46  Both  men  were  later  elected  Governor  of  the  State  of  Minnesota,  and  Ramsey  was 
elected  to  the  United  States  Senate. 


INDIAN  PROBLEM  II9 

because  it  added  one  more  cause  of  bitterness  between  the 
races  and  contributed  to  the  Sioux  outbreak  in  1862. 

Irrespective  of  the  means  by  which  it  was  accomplished, 
there  is  no  question  that  the  negotiation  of  these  treaties  was 
one  of  the  most  important  events  in  the  early  history  of  Minne- 
sota because  it  resulted  in  the  opening  up  of  new  areas  of 
settlement.  The  population  of  the  territory  grew  by  leaps  and 
bounds  after  this  event,  and  Minnesota  was  ready  for  admis- 
sion into  the  Union  in  the  short  space  of  seven  years.46 

46  Much  assistance  in  the  parts  of  this  chapter  dealing  with  the  Sioux  treaties  was  received 
from  an  unusually  good  Master's  Thesis  in  the  library  of  the  University  of  Minnesota  by  Miss 
Ruth  Thompson,  "The  Sioux  Treaties  at  Traverse  des  Sioux  and  Mendota  in  1851  and  their 
Outcome." 


CHAPTER  VIII 

TERRITORIAL  GROWTH  AND  THE  ORGANIZATION 

OF  A  STATE 

Several  considerations  induced  Sibley  not  to  be  a  candidate 
for  re-election  for  another  term  in  Congress.  He  believed  that 
his  services  were  not  fully  appreciated  by  a  large  number  of 
people  at  home  where  the  usual  frontier  feeling  existed  that 
one  man  was  about  as  well  qualified  as  another  for  political 
office.  Also  he  had  no  desire  to  go  through  the  bitterness  of 
another  campaign  like  that  of  1850.  The  differences  between 
himself  and  Rice  had  not  yet  been  healed  when  he  decided 
to  retire  and  it  was  necessary  to  show  some  spirit  of  concilia- 
tion if  the  Democratic  party  in  Minnesota  was  to  become 
united.  Business  considerations  also  probably  had  some 
influence  on  his  decision.  The  prospects  of  becoming  Governor 
of  Minnesota  Territory  also  was  a  factor  in  causing  him  to 
decline  another  nomination  as  delegate.  His  name  had  been 
mentioned  in  connection  with  the  governorship  as  early  as 
1847,  even  before  the  territory  was  organized.1  If  Lewis  Cass 
had  been  elected  President  in  1848  instead  of  Taylor  it  is 
possible,  if  not  probable,  that  Sibley  would  have  been  strongly 
considered  for  the  governorship.  Although  he  had  at  that 
time  not  yet  announced  his  politics,  still  he  was  a  personal 
friend  of  Cass  and  was,  beyond  question,  the  most  prominent 
man  in  the  region  which  became  Minnesota.  As  the  year  1852 
approached,  the  Democrats  were  hopeful  of  a  national  victory 
and  this  would  mean  a  change  of  officials  in  Minnesota  Terri- 
tory. When  Pierce  was  elected,  Sibley's  friends  urged  his 
appointment  to  the  governorship2  and,  for  a  time,  they  were 

1  "Why  will  you  not  take  the  Governorship?   You  can  get  it  for  the  asking."    D.  G.  Fenton 
to  Sibley,  April  13,  1847. 

2  There  is  a  recommendation  of  Sibley,  signed  by  58  members  of  Congress,  including  the 
names  of  Henry  Dodge,  J.  C.  Breckenridge,  and  Andrew  Johnson,  in  the  Sibley  Papers  (Misc.). 

120 


TERRITORIAL  GROWTH  121 

quite  confident  of  success.  During  1852  friends  of  Sibley  and 
Rice  brought  about  an  agreement  between  them  to  effect  a 
reconciliation  between  the  Democratic  factions  in  Minnesota 
and  this  removed  opposition  from  that  quarter  to  Sibley's 
appointment  as  Governor.3  The  two  chief  reasons  why  Sibley 
was  not  appointed  seem  to  have  been  the  attitude  of  Stephen  A. 
Douglas  and  the  fact  that  Sibley  was  connected  with  the  fur 
trade.  Douglas  used  his  influence  against  Sibley  because  the 
latter  was  known  to  favor  the  nomination  of  Cass  in  1852 
rather  than  Douglas.  Sibley's  connection  with  the  Sioux 
Treaties  of  1851  was  used  against  him  but  Pierce  stated  that 
it  did  not  influence  his  decision.4  The  outcome  of  the  matter 
was  that  Willis  A.  Gorman,  of  Indiana,  was  appointed  governor 
and  served  during  the  Pierce  administration.  Sibley  closed 
out  his  connection  with  the  fur  trade  about  this  time  and 
turned  his  attention  to  other  business.  Except  for  one  term 
in  the  territorial  legislature,  1854-55,  he  gave  the  next  four 
years  to  business,  but  he  was  ready  at  all  times  to  assist  in  any 
way  the  development  of  the  territory  and  its  advancement 
towards  statehood.  Since  Sibley  next  emerges  from  private 
life  as  Governor  of  the  State  of  Minnesota,  it  is  necessary  to 
sketch  the  chief  features  of  territorial  growth. 

During  the  period  that  Sibley  was  in  private  life  the  terri- 
tory grew  by  leaps  and  bounds.  The  census  of  1850  gave 
Minnesota  a  population  of  6,077,  or*  which  1,586  were  born  in 
Minnesota,  2,511  born  in  the  United  States  outside  of  Minne- 
sota, and  1,977  were  foreign  born.  The  New  England  element 
was  particularly  strong,  although  it  was  mainly  a  generation 
or  more  away  from  New  England  proper,  as  was  the  case  with 
Sibley.5  New  York  furnished  more  settlers  to  Minnesota  than 
any  other  single  State,  followed  in  order  by  Maine,  Wisconsin, 

3  Rice  to  Sibley,  Feb.  3, 1 853.  This  was  the  first  letter  that  had  passed  between  them  since 
1849.    Hostility  broke  out  between  the  two  men,  however,  a  few  years  later. 

4  A.  C.  Dodge  to  Sibley,  April  1,  1853.    Also  Eastman  to  Sibley,  Dec.  9,  1853. 

5  Of  the  twenty-seven  members  of  the  first  territorial  legislature,  eight  had  been  born  in 
New  England,  four  in  New  York,  six  in  Canada,  two  in  Missouri,  and  one  in  each  of  the  following: 
Delaware,  Ohio,  Michigan,  Pennsylvania,  and  Virginia.    The  nativity  of  two  is  unknown. 


122 


TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 


Ohio,  Pennsylvania,  Illinois,  New  Jersey,  and  Vermont.  Most 
of  the  population  was  along  the  Mississippi  and  St.  Croix 
rivers  and  in  the  Pembina  region  of  the  Red  River  valley. 
Ramsey  county  had  a  population  of  2,222;  Pembina  county 
had  1,134;  and  Washington  county  had  1,056.  More  than  two- 
thirds  of  the  people  of  the  territory  lived  in  these  three  counties. 
Dakota  county  came  next  with  a  population  of  584,  followed 
by  Benton  county  with  418,  Wabashaw  with  343,  Wahnahta 
with  160,  Mahkahta  with  158,  and  Itasca  with  97. 6 


MINNESOTA  TERRITORY  1853. 


The  settlement  of  Minnesota  Territory  progressed  with 
remarkable  rapidity  down  to  the  time  of  the  Panic  of  1857. 
One  way  of  observing  the  increase  of  settlement  of  a  territory 
is  to  see  where  new  counties  were  established  in  the  different 
years  during  the  period.    Unorganized  counties  were  created 

6  See  the  map  for  the  location  of  these  counties. 


TERRITORIAL  GROWTH  1 23 

in  those  parts  of  the  territory  where  the  population  was  not 
sufficient  to  justify  regular  county  government.  These  counties 
were  usually  very  large  in  area  and  as  the  population  increased 
new  county  lines  were  run  and  the  smaller  areas  given  regular 
county  government.  By  reference  to  the  map  of  Minnesota 
Territory  in  1849  **  wu^  De  observed  that  there  were  only  three 
organized  counties  at  that  time  and  that  these  were  in  the 
region  between  the  St.  Croix  and  the  Mississippi  rivers.  Most 
of  the  people  of  this  region  were  connected  either  directly  or 
indirectly  with  the  "lumber  trade"  which  was  the  principal 
industry  in  Minnesota  during  the  territorial  period.  These 
men  were,  as  a  rule,  tresspassers  on  the  public  lands  and  large 
amounts  of  timber  were  cut  annually  and  floated  down  the 
rivers.7  No  surveys  of  the  public  lands  were  made  before  1853 
west  of  the  Mississippi,  but  this  fact  did  not  prevent  the  settlers 
from  crossing  the  river  and  taking  up  the  fertile  lands  in  the 
region  ceded  by  the  Sioux  in  1851.  The  existence  of  organized 
counties  in  this  region  in  advance  of  the  surveys  is  evidence 
that  squatters  were  taking  up  the  agricultural  lands  west  of 
the  Mississippi  and  in  the  Minnesota  river  valley.8  In  1852 
Hennepin  county  was  organized  west  of  the  Mississippi  at  the 
Falls  of  St.  Anthony,  including  the  lands  embraced  in  the 
city  of  Minneapolis.9  Pembina  county  was  also  declared  to  be 
fully  organized  in  1852.  The  legislature  of  1853  organized 
several  new  counties  out  of  what  had  been  Dakota  and  Waba- 
shaw  counties.  By  1854  the  surveys  had  been  made  in  the 
southeastern  part  of  the  territory  so  that  county  boundaries 
begin  to  follow  the  survey  lines;  before  that  time  they  had  been 
described  by  natural  features  only.    Counties  were  organized 

7  Report  of  the  Surveyor  General  to  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  in 
Executive  Documents,  23  Cong.  1  Sess.  1 170-72. 

8  "From  the  report  of  the  surveyor  general  of  Wisconsin  and  Iowa  whose  district  includes 
also  the  Territory  of  Minnesota,  it  will  be  perceived  that  the  emigration  to  that  region  is  so 
great  that  it  is  impossible  for  the  surveys  to  keep  pace  with  the  settlements."  Report  of  Com- 
missioner of  the  General  Land  Office,  1854,  p.  10. 

9  "At  the  time  that  this  county  was  organized  (1852)  it  contained  only  thirty  voters;  at 
the  election  last  October  (1854)  there  were  more  than  400  votes  polled.  .  .  .  The  population 
of  the  county  is  now  (1855)  estimated  at  from  4,000  to  5,000."   Minnesota  Year  Book,  1855,  p.  27. 


124  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

each  year  and  by  1857  most  of  the  land  in  the  Minnesota  river 
valley  and  south  to  the  Iowa  line  was  pretty  well  settled.10 
Land  sales  increased  each  year  up  to  1855  and  then  decreased 
until  the  Panic  of  1857  when  they  became  very  small.  During 
the  decade,  1850-1860,  some  1,812,196  acres  of  land  were  sold 
in  Minnesota  at  an  average  price  of  $1.27  per  acre. 

The  first  wheat  shipped  from  Minnesota  was  in  1857  and 
some  flour  may  have  been  sent  out  as  early  as  1858.11  The 
city  at  the  Falls  of  St.  Anthony  was,  of  course,  destined  to  be 
the  great  "flour  city"  of  the  world,  but  this  development  did 
not  come  for  many  years  after  the  decade  under  consideration. 
It  was  lumber  mills,  rather  than  flour  mills,  that  caused  the 
early  growth  of  Minneapolis.  Minnesota  made  the  transition 
to  agriculture  during  this  decade12  and  wheat  and  flour  increased 
in  importance  as  the  years  went  by. 

In  the  spring  of  1 857  the  people  of  Minnesota  were  expecting 
the  usual  movement  of  population  from  the  East.  It  was 
reported  in  the  territory  that  industrial  unrest  in  the  East  would 
cause  a  large  number  of  people  to  come  to  the  Mississippi 
valley  during  that  year13  but  when  the  Panic  of  1857  occurred, 
immigration  dropped  off  materially  and  there  was  a  shifting 
of  the  population  already  in  the  region  from  the  towns  to  the 
country,  or,  in  other  words,  from  industrial  pursuits  to  agri- 
culture.14 

By  i860  Minnesota  had  a  population  of  172,023,  of  which 
113,295  were  born  in  the  United  States,  of  which  number 
34,305  were  born  in  Minnesota.     Of  the  other  States  contrib- 

10  Minnesota  Year  Book,  1 853,  p.  29.  Also  Report  of  Surveyor  General,  1855,  in  Messages 
and  Documents,  1855-56,  Part  I,  p.  198. 

11  Rogers,  "History  of  Flour  Manufacture  in  Minnesota,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Col- 
lections, 9:38.  Also  Hill,  "History  of  Agriculture  in  Minnesota,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Col- 
lections, 8:276-77. 

12  Robinson,  Economic  History  of  Agriculture  in  Minnesota,  p.  45. 

13  Pioneer  and  Democrat,  May  23,  1857. 

14  "St.  Paul,  the  capital  and  largest  city,  is  said  to  have  lost  half  its  population  during  the 
panic.  This  population  was  in  the  main  transferred  to  agricultural  pursuits  and,  as  a  conse- 
quence, the  cultivated  area  was  more  than  doubled  in  1858  and  in  several  counties  more  than 
quadrupled,  while  the  population  of  the  State  as  a  whole  increased  only  6,000  as  compared  with 
an  increase  of  about  50,000  in  the  previous  year."  Saby,  "Railroad  Legislation  in  Minnesota," 
in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  15:31-32. 


TERRITORIAL  GROWTH  1 25 

uting  to  the  settlement  of  the  State,  New  York  still  led  with  a 
total  of  21,574,  followed  by  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Wisconsin, 
Maine,  Illinois,  Massachusetts,  Indiana,  New  Hampshire, 
Michigan,  Connecticut,  and  Iowa.  Among  the  foreign  born 
population,  the  Germans  came  first  with  18,400,  followed  by  the 
Irish,  Norwegians,  British-Americans,  English,  and  Swedes. 
These  foreigners  settled  especially  in  Ramsey,  Fillmore,  Henne- 
pin, Goodhue,  Dakota,  Carver,  Houston,  Winona,  Washington, 
Rice,  and  LeSueur  counties.  Most  of  the  Germans  settled  in 
the  Minnesota  river  valley  and  the  German  element  predomi- 
nates today  in  many  communities  in  that  section. 

It  has  previously  been  shown  that  Minnesota  Territory 
was  normally  Democratic  and  that,  except  for  factional  fights, 
that  party  could  have  had  control  from  1849  down  to  the  very 
close  of  the  territorial  period.  It  was  expected  that  Minnesota 
would  be  a  Democratic  State  and  the  leaders  of  that  party  were 
anxiously  looking  forward  to  the  period  of  statehood  with  the 
increased  number  of  offices  to  be  filled.  This  pleasant  political 
dream  of  permanent  control  by  the  Democrats  was  shattered 
by  the  passage  of  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Bill  and  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Republican  party.  The  people  of  Minnesota,  as 
elsewhere  in  the  North,  irrespective  of  previous  party  affilia- 
tions, divided  on  the  question  of  slavery  extension  and  the 
opponents  of  the  policy  embodied  in  the  Kansas-Nebraska 
Bill  formed  themselves  into  the  Republican  party.  This  move- 
ment took  shape  in  Minnesota  during  1855,  and  in  the  following 
year  the  new  party  gained  control  of  the  territorial  legislature. 
There  was  a  preliminary  Republican  convention  held  at  St. 
Anthony  on  March  29,  1856,  and  a  convention  was  called  for 
July  25  to  organize  the  party  and  to  nominate  a  candidate 
for  delegate  to  Congress.15    It  was  suggested  in  the  call  that 


15  Minnesota  Territory  was  represented  in  the  Philadelphia  convention  that  nominated 
Fremont  in  1856.  Dr.  J.  B.  Phillips,  of  St.  Paul,  was  on  the  committee  on  credentials,  Ramsey 
was  on  the  platform  committee,  and  M.  S.  Wilkinson  was  chosen  a  member  of  the  National 
Republican  Committee.  Fremont  seemingly  was  not  the  first  choice  of  the  Republicans  of 
Minnesota,  although  they,  of  course,  would  have  no  voice  in  the  election.  Daily  Minnesotian, 
June  27,  1856. 


Il6  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

the  delegates  to  this  convention  be  elected  on  July  4,  "there 
being  no  better  mode  of  celebrating  that  sacred  day  than  by 
raising  once  more  to  the  breeze  the  banner  of  Freedom  so  long 
obscured  by  the  dark  clouds  of  human  bondage."  Two  issued 
were  put  forward  in  this  call  and  all  citizens  regardless  of  previ- 
ous politics  were  urged  to  come  into  the  new  party.  On  the 
slavery  question  the  circular  stated:  "That  the  tendency  of 
our  Government  in  late  years  and  at  the  present  time  is  anti- 
republican  and  in  a  directly  opposite  direction  from  that 
intended  by  the  enlightened  founders,  and  demanded  by  the 
inalienable  rights  of  man,  is  too  surely  attested  by  the  recent 
outrages  of  popular  sovereignty  in  Kansas,  and  the  unlimited 
extension  of  Human  Slavery  sought  by  the  repeal  of  the  Mis- 
souri restriction. "  The  other  issue  was  the  liquor  question  and 
on  this  subject  the  circular  contained  the  following  statement: 
"That  our  fair  Territory  needs  to  be  redeemed  from  the  wither- 
ing blight  of  unrestricted  traffic  in  intoxicating  liquors  is  too 
well  proven  by  our  statistics  of  pauperism  and  crime  having 
their  almost  only  sources  in  this  nefarious  traffic." 

William  R.  Marshall,  one  of  the  principal  leaders  in  the 
organization  of  the  new  party,  was  nominated  to  oppose  Rice 
for  delegate  in  Congress  and  it  is  generally  believed  that,  except 
for  the  temperance  plank  in  the  platform,  he  would  have  been 
elected.  The  fact  that  he  came  so  near  to  election  in  the  first 
campaign  after  the  organization  of  the  Republican  party  and 
the  further  fact  that  the  Republicans  gained  control  of  the 
territorial  legislature  thoroughly  alarmed  the  Democrats.  It 
was  evident  that  the  next  test  of  strength  between  the  parties 
would  be  a  hard  fought  campaign.  This  test  of  strength  came 
in  connection  with  the  formation  of  a  State  constitution  and 
the  transition  to  statehood. 

By  1856  the  people  of  Minnesota  had  begun  to  feel  that 
they  were  ready  for  statehood.  Governor  Gorman  recom- 
mended that  the  legislature  take  steps  for  the  formation  of  a 
State  constitution  and  such  a  bill  was  passed  by  the  territorial 
legislature  even  before  the  passage  of  the  enabling  act  by 


TERRITORIAL  GROWTH  1 27 

Congress,  but  the  bill  seems  to  have  been  lost  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Enrollment  and  was  not  presented  to  the  Governor 
for  his  approval.  The  purpose  of  this  move  was  probably  to 
help  force  the  matter  on  the  attention  of  Congress  rather  than 
to  actually  attempt  State  organization. 

On  December  24,  1856,  Rice  introduced  into  Congress  a 
bill  for  the  organization  of  Minnesota  as  a  State  and  on  Janu- 
ary 31,  1857,  Grow,  of  Pennsylvania,  reported  as  a  substitute 
the  bill  which  became  the  enabling  act.  This  bill  was  in  the 
usual  form  and  gave  Minnesota  her  present  boundaries.  It 
also  provided  for  a  constitutional  convention,  the  delegates  to 
which  should  be  chosen  on  the  first  Monday  in  June,  1 857.  The 
convention  was  to  meet  on  the  second  Monday  in  July  and 
proceed  to  the  making  of  a  State  constitution,  if  the  delegates 
so  assembled  were  in  favor  of  statehood.  The  bill  passed  the 
House  by  a  vote  of  97  to  75  and,  after  considerable  debate, 
passed  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  31  to  22. 16 

In  the  choice  of  delegates  to  the  convention  there  were  some 
seats  contested  and  the  composition  of  the  convention  would 
depend  on  the  action  of  the  committee  on  credentials.  For 
this  reason  both  Republicans  and  Democrats  were  exceedingly 
anxious  to  control  the  organization  of  the  convention.  Since 
the  hour  of  the  meeting  was  not  specified,  the  Republicans 
assembled  in  the  hall  on  Sunday  night,  July  12,  and  were  in 
possession,  waiting  for  the  appearance  of  the  Democratic 
delegates.  At  12  o'clock  noon  on  July  13  the  Democrats 
appeared  and  the  meeting  was  called  to  order  by  C.  L.  Chase, 
Secretary  and  acting  Governor  of  the  Territory.  The  Demo- 
crats promptly  voted  that  the  convention  adjourn  until  12 
o'clock  noon  of  the  following  day  and  withdrew.  The  Repub- 
licans refused  to  recognize  this  adjournment  and  proceeded  to 
organize  themselves  into  a  constitutional  convention.  On  the 
following  day  at  the  appointed  time  the  Democrats  re-appeared 
but,  finding  the  hall  "in  possession  of  a  meeting  of  the  citizens 

-16  Congressional  Globe,  34  Cong.  3  Sess.,  201,  517,  519,  542, 734,  808,  814,  860,  877. 


128  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

of  the  Territory"  who  would  not  vacate  the  room  at  the  demand 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Territory,  adjourned  to  the  council 
chamber  in  the  opposite  wing  of  the  building  and  elected  tempo- 
rary officers  of  the  convention.  Sibley  was  elected  president 
pro  tern  of  the  Democratic  convention,  which  adjourned  from 
day  to  day  until  July  27,  possibly  waiting  partly  for  Democrats 
to  arrive  to  contest  seats  in  the  convention,  but  on  that  day 
they  resolved  that  they  constituted  the  regular  convention  and 
Sibley  was  elected  president.17  The  result  was  that  two  conven- 
tions were  held,18  but,  since  good  models  for  State  constitutions 
existed,  the  two  conventions,  drawing  largely  from  the  same 
sources,  came  to  about  the  same  results  in  the  formation  of  a 
constitution  for  Minnesota.  The  chief  matters  of  importance 
debated  were  the  questions  of  boundaries  and  the  suffrage. 
On  the  latter  point  the  subject  was  in  regard  to  negroes  and 
aliens  voting  and  some  delegates  even  advocated  that  Indians 
should  be  given  the  ballot  when  they  should  declare  their 
intentions  of  becoming  citizens.  Even  the  Republicans  voted 
against  extending  the  suffrage  to  negroes.19 

The  Democrats  had  the  advantage  because  of  the  fact  that 
the  territorial  officers  refused  to  allow  pay  to  the  members  of 
the  Republican  convention,  who  then  adopted  a  more  concilia- 
tory attitude.  It  was  also  feared  by  both  parties  that  the  irregu- 
larity of  a  double  convention  might  prejudice  Congress  against 
the  admission  of  Minnesota.  Finally,  on  August  8,  Judge 
Sherburne  offered  a  resolution  in  the  Democratic  convention 
proposing  a  Conference  Committee  to  meet  with  the  Republi- 
cans and  endeavor  to  heal  the  schism.  This  resolution  was 
indefinitely  postponed.  On  August  11,  the  Republican  con- 
vention passed  the  identical  resolution  which  Judge  Sherburne 

11 Journal  of the  Constitutional  Convention  of  the  Territory  of  Minnesota,  I,  2,  17,  il, 

18  The  debates  in  both  conventions  were  published  and  are  in  the  library  of  the  Minnesota 
Historical  Socity. 

19  The  following  clipping  from  the  Chicago  Times  was  published  in  the  Pioneer  and  Demo- 
crat, Sept.  10,  1857:  "The  vote  in  the  Republican  convention  in  Minnesota  on  striking  out  the 
word  'white'  in  the  clause  conferring  political  rights  on  'citizens'  was,  yea  17,  nays  34.  The 
convention  unanimously  resolved  that  negroes  were  born  free  and  equal  to  the  white  man,  but 
refused  by  a  vote  of  two  to  one  to  admit  the  negro  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  equality  to  which 
they  said  he  was  born." 


TERRITORIAL  GROWTH  1 29 

had  proposed  and  appointed  a  Conference  Committee  of  five 
to  confer  with  a  similar  committee  which  they  hoped  the 
Democrats  would  appoint.  Saner  councils  prevailed  in  both 
conventions  and  the  joint  committees  agreed  upon  a  constitu- 
tion.20 The  Republicans,  who  were  younger  and  less  experi- 
enced men,  seem  to  have  bowed  to  the  inevitable  as  gracefully 
as  possible,  although  their  work  was  actually  further  along  and 
nearer  completion  than  that  of  the  Democrats.  Sibley,  in  a 
farewell  speech  to  the  Democratic  convention,  claimed  that 
the  document  agreed  upon  was  essentially  the  work  of  the 
convention  over  which  he  had  presided.21  Neither  convention 
had  yet  drawn  up  a  completed  constitution,  however,  when  the 
conference  committee  was  agreed  upon,  the  conclusions  of  each 
on  the  various  questions  involved  being  only  in  the  committee 
report  stage. 

The  constitution  was  referred  to  the  people  in  an  election 
on  October  13,  1857,  and  was  ratified  by  a  vote  of  35,140  to 
700.22  At  the  same  time  the  people  of  the  Territory  voted  for 
State  officers.  The  Republicans  nominated  Ramsey  for  Gover- 
nor and  the  Democrats  nominated  Sibley.23  In  a  speech  before 
the  nominating  convention,  September  16,  1857,  Sibley  expres- 
sed his  views  of  the  Republican  party  and  the  slavery  question 
and  pointed  out  the  importance  of  the  coming  election.  "Who 
are  our  opponents?",  he  asked.  "The  Republican  party,  so 
styled  by  themselves,  comprise  the  Know  Nothings,  the  Free 
Soilers,  the  Abolitionists,  the  Maine  Law  Advocates,  in  fact 
every  wild  and  crude  fanaticism  of  the  day  has  there  found  a 
resting  place,  and  the  assemblage  of  discordant  elements  has 
no  cohesive  power  except  its  common  hatred  for  the  Democracy, 

20  Journal  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  the  Territory  of  Minnesota,  75,  83,  159. 

21  "It  was  adopted  by  our  political  opponents  as  it  first  emanated  from  this  body,  with 
few  and  unimportant  changes  or  amendments."    Pioneer  and  Democrat,  Aug.  30,  1857. 

22  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Minnesota  Constitutional  Convention,  677. 

23  "There  is  a  propriety  in  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Sibley  as  a  candidate  for  the  first  Govern- 
norship  of  the  State  of  Minnesota,  which  must  meet  with  general  and  cordial  approbation.  It 
is  fit  that  the  man  whose  efforts  secured  its  existence  as  a  Territory  should  become  the  recipient 
of  the  first  and  highest  honors  within  the  gift  of  our  new-born  State."  Pioneer  and  Democrat 
Sept.  18,  1857. 


130 


TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 


and  its  common  desire  for  the  spoils  of  office.  We  have  been 
charged  by  them  with  being  a  pro-slavery  party,  an  accusation 
which  every  man  within  the  sound  of  my  voice  knows  to  be 
false.  We  deny  the  right  of  Congress  any  jurisdiction  over 
this  question  and  we  deny  its  power  to  say  to  this  or  that  State 
or  Territory  'You  shall,  or  you  shall  not,  have  this  or  that 
domestic  institution  in  your  midst/  We  are  all  opposed  to 
slavery  extension  so  far  as  that  object  can  be  attained  within 
the  limits  of  the  Constitution;  but  we  hold  it  is  the  right  of 
each  State  and  Territory  to  settle  these  matters  for  themselves 
without  interference  from  any  quarter.  This  is  one  of  the 
cardinal  principles  of  the  Democratic  party."  "Gentlemen, 
we  have  a  contest  before  us,"  he  said  in  closing,  "which, 
politically  speaking,  is  of  more  importance  than  will  again 
take  place  for  years.  It  would  be  a  burning  shame  if  we  allowed 
Minnesota  to  enter  the  Union  under  Republican  banners,  there- 
by repudiating  the  great  Democratic  party  which  has  strength- 
ened and  supported  us  during  our  Territorial  dependence."24 
The  campaign  was  hard  fought  and  frauds  seem  to  have  been 
committed  by  both  parties,  one  being  about  as  guilty  as  the 
other.  The  result  of  the  election  was  in  doubt  for  several  days 
until  returns  could  come  from  the  Pembina  region  and  other 
distant  settlements.  Finally  it  was  announced  that  Sibley 
had  won  by  a  majority  of  240  votes  out  of  a  total  vote  of  35,340. 
The  Republicans  did  not  concede  Sibley's  election  and  through- 
out his  administration  continually  referred  to  him  as  the 
"Governor  by  fraud."25  The  Pioneer  and  Democrat  announced 
Sibley's  election  in  large  headlines  and  affirmed  that  the  Kansas- 
Nebraska  Bill,  the  Dred  Scott  Decision,  President  Buchanan, 
and  Stephen  A.  Douglas  had  all  been  "endorsed"  by  the 
people  of  Minnesota.26 

24  Pioneer  and  Democrat,  Sept.  16,  1857. 

25  The  Minnesotian,  Jan.  1,  1858,  published  the  following  clipping  from  the  Dubuque 
Tribune  (Democratic):  "The  certificate  of  election  will  be  given  to  Mr.  Sibley,  but  doubt  exists 
whether  he  will  accept  it  or  not.  His  opponent,  Mr.  Ramsey,  has  undoubtedly  received  the 
majority  of  the  votes  cast  in  the  territory.  Some  districts  gave  Sibley  100  majority  where  it 
has  been  proven  that  not  a  dozen  voters  live.    Honesty  is  the  best  policy." 

26  Pioneer  and  Democrat,  Nov.  3,  1857. 


TERRITORIAL  GROWTH  I3I 

The  bill  to  admit  Minnesota  into  the  Union  was,  after  a 
long  and  spirited  debate,  passed  by  the  Senate  on  April  7, 
1858,  and  by  the  House  on  May  11,  1858.27  The  news  reached 
Minnesota  on  May  13,  having  been  telegraphed  to  LaCrosse 
and  sent  from  there  up  the  river.28  The  State  officers  took  their 
oaths  of  office  on  May  24,  1858,  and  Minnesota  entered  upon 
her  career  as  a  State  within  the  American  Union.29 

27  It  was  claimed  that  the  admission  of  Minnesota  was  delayed  by  the  Buchanan  adminis- 
tration in  order  to  force  Kansas  into  the  Union  under  the  Lecompton  Constitution  at  the  same 
time  that  Minnesota  was  admitted  as  a  free  State.  Minnesotian,  Jan.  21,  1858,  printing  a 
clipping  from  the  Chicago  Tribune  of  Jan.  16,  1858. 

28  Pioneer  and  Democrat,  May  14,  1858. 

29  The  State  administration,  including  the  United  States  Senators,  was  Democratic.  The 
Dubuque  Tribune  printed  the  following  regarding  the  party:  "It  appears  that  the  Democratic 
party  of  Minnesota  is  composed  of  two  classes,  Indians  and  Irishmen.  In  the  election  of  the 
two  United  States  Senators  from  that  State,  the  other  day,  the  greatest  care  was  taken  to  do 
equal  and  exact  justice  to  both  wings  of  the  party.  Accordingly,  Mr.  Rice  was  chosen  as  Sena- 
tor for  the  Indian  division,  or  the  breech  clout  Democracy,  and  Mr.  Shields  as  the  Senator  for 
the  Irish  portion  of  the  unterrified.  This  impartial  and  even-handed  justice  is  very  touching." 
Quoted  in  the  Minnesotian ,  Jan.  1,  1858. 


CHAPTER  IX 
THE  ADVENT  OF  THE  RAILROAD  TO  MINNESOTA 

The  period  of  Sibley's  governorship  was  not  a  time  of  great 
prosperity,  and  the  administration  was  not  regarded  as  an 
unqualified  success.  Several  perplexing  and  embarrassing 
situations  presented  themselves  which  would  have  prevented 
a  brillant  administration  no  matter  who  was  governor.  The 
transition  from  territorial  to  state  government  was  no  sooner 
accomplished  than  the  whole  country  found  itself  in  the  midst 
of  the  Panic  of  1857  which  fell  with  great  severity  on  the  new 
State.  This  situation  continued  during  most  of  Sibley's  admin- 
istration and  prevented  much  real  constructive  work  of  great 
moment.  Several  important  laws  were  placed  upon  the  statute 
books,  the  most  important  of  which  dealt  with  such  matters 
as  education,  the  organization  of  the  militia,  and  the  regula- 
lation  of  banking;  but  by  far  the  most  important  question  of 
the  time  was  that  of  railroads  for  Minnesota,  involving  the 
famous  "Five  Million  Dollar  Loan"  of  State  credit.1  It  is 
necessary  to  sketch  briefly  the  history  of  the  previous  efforts  to 
secure  railroads  in  order  to  present  this  troublesome  question 
in  its  proper  light. 

For  many  years  the  people  of  Minnesota  had  tried  to  get 
railroad  connections  with  the  lines  extending  from  Chicago 
to  the  Mississippi  river  in  order  to  have  a  transportation  system 
open  the  whole  year  through.  As  early  as  1851,  while  Sibley 
was  in  Congress,  the  Territory  had  asked  for  land  grants  for 
railroads.2  No  results  were  accomplished  at  that  time  and  in 
1853    Governor   Ramsey   recommended   that   the   territorial 

1  The  two  best  accounts  of  the  "Five  Million  Loan"  are,  Folwell,  "The  Five  Million  Loan," 
in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  15:189-214,  and  Saby,  "Railroad  Legislation  in  Minnesota," 
in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  15:35-48. 

2  See  Chapter  VI  above. 

132 


ADVENT  OF  THE  RAILROAD  I33 

legislature  send  another  memorial  to  Congress  on  the  subject. 
This  was  not  done  at  the  time,  but  the  legislature  did  incorpor- 
ate five  railroad  companies  which  were  never  organized.  In 
1854  the  legislature  again  memorialized  Congress  for  a  land 
grant;  at  the  same  time  it  incorporated  the  Minnesota  and 
Northwestern  Railway  Company  and  transferred  to  it  any 
lands  which  the  State  might  receive  from  the  United  States 
for  railroad  purposes.  Most  of  the  politicians  of  Minnesota 
were  interested  in  some  way  in  this  company.  Congress  acted 
favorably  upon  the  memorial,  but  the  act  making  the  grant 
was  drawn  in  such  a  way  as  "to  exclude  the  above  named  cor- 
poration from  the  land  grant.  The  wording  of  the  bill  was  then 
changed  by  the  erasure  of  the  word  "and"  and  substituting 
the  word  "or"  after  it  had  left  the  House  and  before  it  reached 
the  Senate.  This  change  was  made  in  order  to  enable  the 
Minnesota  and  Northwestern  Railway  Company  to  receive  the 
grant.  When  the  piece  of  trickery  was  discovered,  the  whole 
act  was  repealed  by  Congress,  and  Minnesota  was  left  without 
the  immediate  prospects  of  railroads.  The  railway  company 
maintained  that  the  repeal  of  the  land  grant  was  invalid,  and 
that  the  act  making  the  grant  gave  them  title  which  could  not 
be  taken  away.  The  territorial  courts  decided  the  question  in 
favor  of  the  railroad  company,  but  the  United  States  Supreme 
Court  upheld  the  validity  of  the  repeal.3 

Altogether,  fifteen  companies  were  chartered  by  the  legisla- 
ture during  the  territorial  period,  and  not  a  single  mile  of 
railroad  was  constructed.  Four  of  these  companies  were 
organized,  and  Congress  was  again  appealed  to  for  a  land  grant 
which  was  made  shortly  before  the  admission  of  the  State.  The 
act  of  Congress  specified  the  routes,  and  the  State  was  only  to 
act  as  agent  for  the  transfer  of  title  to  the  companies.  The 
grants  were  similar  to  the  Illinois  Central  grant  of  1850  in 
form.  One  route  was  as  follows:  "From  Stillwater,  by  way  of 
St.  Paul  and  St.  Anthony,  to  a  point  below  the  foot  of  Big  Stone 

a  Folwell,  Minnesota,  124. 


134  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

Lake  and  the  mouth  of  the  Sioux  Wood  river  (the  present  town 
of  Breckenridge),  with  a  branch  via  St.  Cloud  and  Crow  Wing, 
to  the  navigable  waters  of  the  Red  River  of  the  North,  at  such 
point  as  the  legislature  of  the  said  territory  may  determine." 
The  Minnesota  and  Pacific  Railroad  Company  was  organized 
on  May  22,  1857,  and  the  lands  in  this  grant  were  conveyed  to 
it.  Another  route  extended  "From  St.  Paul  and  St.  Anthony, 
via  Minneapolis,  to  a  convenient  point  of  junction  west  of  the 
Mississippi,  to  the  southern  boundary  of  the  Territory  in  the 
direction  of  the  Big  Sioux  river,  with  a  branch  via  Faribault 
to  the  north  line  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  west  of  range  sixteen." 
This  road  became  the  Minneapolis  and  Cedar  Valley  Railroad 
Company,  of  which  Sibley  was  one  of  the  directors.  Still  an- 
other route  went  "From  Winona,  via  St.  Peter,  to  a  point  on 
the  Big  Sioux  river,  south  of  the  forty-fifth  parallel  of  north 
latitude."  This  became  the  Transit  Railroad  Company.  The 
other  route  extended  "From  La  Cresent,  via  Target  Lake,  up 
the  valley  of  the  Root  river  to  a  point  of  junction  with  the  last 
mentioned  road  (the  Transit)  east  of  range  seventeen."  This 
became  the  Southern  Minnesota  Railroad  Company.4 

The  outlook  for  railroads  in  Minnesota  was  regarded  as 
very  favorable  when  the  Panic  of  1857  came  and  changed  the 
optimism  into  deepest  gloom.  Since  the  land  was  to  be  granted 
only  as  sections  of  the  roads  were  constructed,  the  railroad 
companies  represented  that  if  they  could  only  get  the  money 
to  construct  the  first  twenty  miles  of  the  road  bed,  they  could 
then  receive  the  land  for  that  part  of  the  road  and  use  it  as  a 
basis  of  credit  for  funds  to  continue  construction.  A  pro- 
vision in  the  State  constitution,  recently  ratified,  prohibited 
the  loaning  of  the  State  credit  to  individuals  or  corporations. 
So  great  was  the  desire  for  railroads,  however,  and  so  sure  were 
the  people  that  the  roads  would  be  constructed  if  some  financial 
assistance  was  extended  to  them  that  the  provision  was  replaced 


4  Folwell,  Minnesota,  161.    Also  Saby,  "Railroad  Legislation  in  Minnesota,"  in  Minnesota 
Historical  Collections,  15:7-8. 


ADVENT  OF  THE  RAILROAD  I35 

by  a  constitutional  amendment  which  authorized  a  "loan  of 
public  credit"  to  the  railroad  companies.8 

This  "Five  Million  Dollar  Loan"  was  a  prominent  subject  in 
Minnesota  politics  for  more  than  twenty  years.  The  people 
of  the  State  claimed  that  there  was  a  distinction  between  a 
State  debt  for  internal  improvements  and  a  loan  of  public 
credit,  and  insisted  that  it  was  never  their  intention  that  the 
railroad  bonds  should  be  paid  by  the  State.  A  study  of  the 
contemporary  newspapers  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  this 
contention  was  not  well  founded  because  the  full  consequences 
of  their  act  was  held  up  before  them  at  the  time  that  the  amend- 
ment was  up  for  ratification.  The  press  of  the  State  divided  on 
the  question  at  the  time  and  the  subject  was  thoroughly  discus- 
sed pro  and  con,  and  if  the  people  did  not  understand  what  they 
were  going  into  it  was  simply  because  their  enthusiasm  for 
railroads  blinded  their  vision  as  to  the  possibility  of  disaster  to 
railroad  companies  with  no  better  financial  backing  than  the 
ones  they  propsed  to  deal  with.  The  Pioneer  and  Democrat 
opposed  the  loan  at  first,6  but  later  come  out  in  favor  of  it. 
The  Minnesotian  consistently  opposed  the  loan  all  the  way 
through  and  insisted  that  the  railroad  companies  were  not 
formed  honestly  to  construct  a  transportation  system  for  the 
people  of  Minnesota,  but  were  speculative  in  character,  the 
aim  being  to  make  money  out  of  the  construction  work  and 
from  speculation  in  lands  and  town  sites.  It  also  told  the 
people  over  and  over  again  that  the  security  for  the  State  bonds 
was  not  adequate,  and  that  the  bonds  would  eventually  fall 
back  upon  the  State  treasury  for  payment.7  The  companies 
seem  to  have  carried  on  an  extensive  propaganda;  meetings 
were  held  in  different  parts  of  the  State,  and  the  Minnesotian 
insisted  that  they  were  gotten  up  by  "interested  parties."8 

6  This  amendment  was  adopted  April  15,  1858,  and  the  State  was  not  admitted  until  the 
following  month. 

6  Pioneer  and  Democrat,  Feb.  9,  1858;  Mar.  II,  Mar.  14,  and  April  15,  1858.  In  the  first 
issue  mentioned  the  editor  was  not  convinced,  but  in  later  ones  he  was. 

7  Daily  Minnesotian,  Feb.  25,  1858,  and  almost  every  issue  until  April  15,  1858. 
%Ibid,  Feb.  26, 1858. 


I36  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

Printed  matter  was  furnished  by  the  companies  to  be  scattered 
broadcast  over  the  State,  and  the  charge  was  openly  made  that 
bribery  had  been  used  to  get  the  amendment  through  the  extra 
session  of  the  legislature  in  the  spring  of  1858.9  The  Mankato 
Independent^  March  19,  1858,  said:  "We  cannot  but  look  upon 
the  scheme  as  a  Great  Fraud  upon  the  people,  perpetrated  under 
the  guise  of  facilitating  operations  upon  the  projected  Railroads 
of  Minnesota/'  In  spite  of  all  the  argument  against  the  propo- 
sition, the  people  of  Minnesota  were  determined  to  risk  all  for 
the  sake  of  railroads,  and  the  amendment  was  adopted.  The 
Minnesotian  in  considerable  disgust  at  the  outcome  of  the 
election  printed  the  following  editorial  on  April  16,  the  day 
following  the  election:  "The  populace,  yesterday,  in  voting 
for  the  Loan  of  5,000,000  of  dollars  to  the  Railroad  Companies, 
went  it  with  a  mad  and  blind  rush,  only  to  be  compared  to  that 
of  a  bull  in  a  china  shop  .  .  .  and  all  felt  as  good  doubtless  as 
Adam  did  when  he  ate  the  apple  in  Paradise.,,  Sibley  did  not 
openly  express  his  attitude  on  the  question  while  it  was  before 
the  people,10  but  he  stated  several  years  later  that  he  voted 
against  the  loan,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  he  was  one  of 
the  directors  of  the  Minneapolis  and  Cedar  Valley  Company.11 
The  chief  arguments  in  favor  of  the  loan  were  summarized  in 
a  report  of  a  select  committee  of  the  State  senate,  January  30, 
1 858,  of  which  two  thousand  copies  were  printed  and  distributed 
over  the  State.12  This  report  stated  that  surveys  for  the  roads 
had  been  made  and  "except  for  the  panic  of  '57  the  companies 
would  have  been  able  to  construct  thirty  miles  each,  as  would 
have  afforded  them  a  basis  for  the  issue  and  sale  of  bonds  for 
the  rapid  extension  of  the  lines."     Unaided,  the  companies 

9  The  Minnesotian,  March  I,  1858,  quoted  the  Times  as  saying  that  $40,000  in  stock  had 
been  used  to  bribe  the  legislature.  The  Minnesotian,  March  23,  made  the  statement  also  in  an 
article  on  "The  Why  and  Because  of  the  $5,000,000  Swindle." 

10  Pioneer  and  Democrat,  April  18,  1858. 

11  Pamphlet  on  "United  States  Circuit  Court  in  Equity,"  in  volume  on  the  "Five  Million 
Loan,"  p.  49,  in  library  of  Minnesota  Historical  Society. 

12  This  pamphlet  together  with  the  above  and  twenty  two  others  are  bound  together  under 
the  title  "Five  Million  Loan."  Most  of  the  material  for  this  chapter  is  taken  from  them  and  from 
the  Sibley  Papers. 


ADVENT  OF  THE  RAILROAD  137 

would  be  unable  to  proceed  with  the  construction  of  the  roads 
for  some  time  at  least.  "Hence  an  inevitable  postponement 
of  these  important  improvements,  unless  the  aid  of  the  State  is 
extended  for  the  purpose  of  placing  our  railroad  interests  above 
temporary  depression  which  has  resulted  from  the  convulsion 
of  1857/'  The  report  also  emphasized  the  advantages  which 
would  come  from  the  spending  of  $5,000,000  in  Minnesota: 
(a)  markets  would  be  stimulated;  (b)  means  of  liquidating 
liabilities  to  other  sections  of  the  country  would  be  placed  in 
reach  of  business  men;  (c)  wages  of  labor  would  not  depreciate; 
(d)  immigration  to  Minnesota  would  be  stimulated;  (e)  "and 
above  all,  there  would  be  an  amount  of  railroad  construction 
sufficient  to  furnish  a  basis  satisfactory  to  capitalists  for  the 
loan  directly  to  the  Companies  of  whatever  funds  are  requisite 
to  push  forward  our  entire  system  of  internal  improvements  to 
speedy  completion. "  "All  this  can  be  effected  within  one  year, 
every  preliminary  can  be  arranged  before  the  opening  of  navi- 
gation on  the  Mississippi  river;  and  instead  of  stagnation  and 
corresponding  depression  in  every  walk  of  business  or  enter- 
prise, an  opposite  state  of  things  pleasing  to  the  patriotic 
citizen  will  certainly  be  induced,  without  sacrifice  or  injury  to 
any  interest,  public  or  private." 

By  way  of  security  to  the  State  the  companies  were  to 
deposit  with  the  State  Treasurer  first  mortgage  bonds,  of  equal 
amount,  which  were  to  be  sold  in  case  of  default  in  the  payment 
of  interest  on  the  State  Railroad  Bonds;  or,  at  the  option  of  the 
Governor,  instead  of  the  sale  of  the  first  mortgage  bonds,  the 
mortgage  on  the  roads  and  their  grants  of  land  could  be  fore- 
closed. Also  the  net  profits  of  the  roads  were  pledged  for  the 
payment  of  interest.  These  were  the  principal  arguments 
which  influenced  the  people  to  vote  for  the  constitutional 
amendment  permitting  the  loan  of  State  credit.  The  people 
overlooked  the  elementary  facts  that  the  companies  had 
nothing  back  of  them,  hence  a  mortgage  was  worthless;  also 
that  there  were  no  immediate  prospects  of  net  profits  with  which 
to  pay  the  interest.    The  Senate  Committee  cited  precedents 


I38  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

of  similar  action  by  Tennessee  and  Massachusetts,  and  con- 
cluded that  Minnesota  was  justified  in  extending  credit  "and 
that,  too,  a  nominal  liability ,  with  unquestionable  security  to 
the  taxpayer,  and  a  certainty  of  effecting  the  salutary  results 
already  referred  to."  The  people  evidently  listened  to  this 
argument  rather  than  to  that  of  the  Minnesotian  and  other 
papers  which  opposed  the  loan. 

The  aid  was  to  be  extended  to  the  companies  in  the  following 
manner.  To  each  company  the  Governor  was  directed  to  issue 
$150,000  of  special  State  bonds,  bearing  7%  interest,  payable 
semi-annually  in  New  York,  redeemable  any  time  after  ten 
years.  The  companies  were  expressedly  forbidden  to  negotiate 
these  bonds  except  at  par,  and  the  proceeds  from  their  sale 
was  to  be  used  in  the  location,  construction,  or  equipment  of 
the  roads.  On  the  companies  complying  with  these  conditions, 
the  Governor  was  to  issue  $50,000  more  of  bonds  under  the 
same  circumstances,  but  the  total  aid  must  not  exceed 
$5,000,000,  nor  more  than  $1,250,000  to  any  one  company.  In 
case  any  company  should  default  in  the  payment  of  interest, 
no  more  bonds  were  to  be  issued  to  it. 

The  amendment  to  the  State  constitution  was  adopted  by 
an  overwhelming  vote  on  April  15,  1858,  and  the  promoters  of 
the  railroads  immediately  went  East  to  raise  the  necessary 
capital.  Funds  were  not  forthcoming,  however,  as  soon  or  as 
easily  as  the  enthusiastic  Westerners  expected.  W.  A.  Jones, 
one  of  the  promoters,  wrote  to  Sibley  on  May  15,  1858,  from 
New  York,  that  Wall  Street  required  "much,  very  much  time 
in  which  to  consider  and  reconsider  and  to  turn  over  &  turn 
over  again  and  again  a  business  proposition  than  we  western 
men  do."  He  also  wrote  that  the  directors  were  trying  to  do  an 
honest  piece  of  work,  and  said  that  it  would  be  much  easier  to 
arrange  with  "dummy"  contractors  "and  leave  the  whole  line 
when  completed  a  rotten  &  insolvent  concern.  But,  Sir,  can 
you  believe  it  that  this  determination  on  our  part  to  make  clean 
&  honest  work  of  it,  is  in  reality  the  greatest  hindrance  we  have 
to  encounter?    Strange,  indeed,  it  is  but  true,  Sir,  as  Heaven." 


ADVENT  OF  THE  RAILROAD  I39 

In  his  inaugural  address,  June  4,  1858,  Sibley  clearly  stated 
his  attitude  in  regard  to  the  issue  of  State  bonds.  "Before  any 
State  bonds  can  be  issued  to  these  companies,  they  must  pro- 
duce satisfactory  evidence,  verified  by  the  affidavits  of  certain 
of  their  officers,  that  a  specified  amount  of  labor  has  been  previ- 
ously performed  upon  their  respective  roads.  As  the  guardian 
of  the  interests  of  the  State,  during  my  term,  it  is  proper  for  me 
to  state  that,  while  I  should  avoid  being  unreasonably  strict 
with  these  railroad  associations,  I  shall  require  to  be  satisfied  by 
unquestionable  evidence,  that  they  have  complied  as  well  with 
the  spirit  as  with  the  letter  of  the  amendment  authorizing  the 
loan,  and  that  they  are  conducting  their  operations,  as  parties 
to  the  contract  with  the  people  of  the  State,  in  good  faith, 
before  I  will  consent  to  deliver  over  to  them  any  portion  of  her 
bonds."13 

Construction  work  was  begun  on  June  10,  1858,  between 
St.  Paul  and  St.  Anthony  where  grading  could  be  done  with 
little  difficulty,  and  the  people  of  the  State  believed  that  their 
hopes  for  railroad  transportation  were  soon  to  be  realized.14 
Matters  were  not  going  well  in  the  East,  however,  in  disposing 
of  the  State  bonds.  On  August  2,  1858,  Isaac  Atwater  wrote 
to  Sibley  that  the  outlook  was  very  discouraging,  that  the 
capitalists  "have  got  the  thing  so  bedeviled  they  do  not  know 
what  they  want,  nor  what  is  wrong  about  them  now,  but  it 
seems  as  though  a  sort  of  impression  was  prevailing  that  some- 
thing about  them  is  wrong,  which  in  these  times  is  enough  to 
frighten  anybody."  By  the  latter  part  of  August,  the  situation 
was  beginning  to  get  desperate.  On  August  23,  Atwater  again 
wrote  to  Sibley  and  urged  him  to  come  East  in  September  and 
try  to  place  the  bonds  or  raise  money  on  the  company's  respon- 
sibility. Two  days  later  the  necessity  of  a  default  on  the  part  of 
the  companies  was  suggested.  J.  W.  Taylor,  in  a  latter  to 
Sibley,  said:  "The  more  I  think  of  the  matter,  Governor,  the 
more  fully  I  am  satisfied  that  the  only  way  to  prevent  default  in 

13  Pioneer  and  Democrat,  June  4,  1858. 

14  Minnesotian,  June  11,  1858. 


I4O  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

the  payment  of  interest  is  to  allow  the  companies  to  use  their 
first  mortgage  bonds  to  provide  means  for  making  these  pay- 
ments and  to  push  construction  to  the  point  when  the  profits 
of  the  roads  in  operation  will  be  adequate  for  the  purpose. 
What  I  urge  to  enter  on  your  executive  Records  will  secure 
roads  in  operation — thus  removing  the  only  danger  to  which 
the  system  is  exposed." 

By  the  last  of  October,  about  thirty-five  miles  of  grading 
had  been  done,  but  the  necessity  of  raising  money  was  more 
pressing  than  ever.  "We  must  have  bonds  or  money  without 
delay,"  J.  W.  North  wrote  to  Sibley  on  October  27,  1858.  A 
controversy  had  arisen  between  Sibley  and  the  directors  of  the 
companies,  and  this  was  what  was  holding  up  the  issue  of  the 
bonds.  The  difficulty  was  over  the  construction  of  the  expres- 
sion "first  mortgage  bonds."  Sibley  insisted  that  the  bonds 
turned  over  to  the  State  Treasurer  in  return  for  the  State 
Railroad  Bonds  should  be  prior  lien  bonds  and  not  ordinary  first 
mortgage  bonds  such  as  the  companies  might  issue  to  other 
holders,  as  the  companies  were  insisting  upon.  Sibley  stood 
his  ground  until  the  Supreme  Court  of  Minnesota  issued 
peremptory  mandamus  upon  him  to  issue  $300,000  of  State 
bonds  to  the  Minnesota  and  Pacific  Railroad  Company  upon  the 
officers  of  that  company  turning  over  to  the  State  Treasurer  an 
equivalent  amount  of  the  company's  first  mortgage  bonds 
without  prior  lien  in  favor  of  the  State.15  Sibley,  as  chief  execu- 
tive officer  of  Minnesota,  was  not  bound  legally  to  obey  orders 
from  a  co-ordinate  department  of  the  government  and  his 
friends  earnestly  hoped  that  he  would  stand  firm  in  his  deter- 
mination to  preserve  the  State's  credit.  "The  State  of  Minne- 
sota has  too  much  both  for  the  present  and  the  future  at  stake 
upon  your  decision  to  permit  anything  like  retreat  from  the 
contest  or  quiet  submission  to  the  decision  of  any  court  (whether 
railroad  judges  or  not),"  W.  G.  LuDuc  wrote  to  Sibley,  Novem- 

15  Records,  Executive  Office,  1858-1862,  p.  63,  in  archives  in  the  Governor's  office.  This 
situation  gave  the  Minnesotian  an  opportunity  to  take  the  "I  told  you  so"  attitude,  which  it 
did  in  an  editorial  Nov.  II,  1858. 


ADVENT  OF  THE  RAILROAD  I4I 

ber  20,  1858.  "I  was  told  while  recently  in  St.  Paul,"  he 
continued,  "that  you  had  determined  to  acquiesce  in  the  deci- 
sion of  the  court  &  issue  the  bonds.  I  hope  it  is  not  true.  The 
court  cannot  compel  you  to  issue  the  bonds."  Ramsey  Crooks, 
Sibley's  old  friend  of  fur  trading  days,  wrote  to  him  on  Novem- 
ber 22,  1858,  urging  him  to  stand  his  ground.  "The  attempt 
of  the  Rail  R.  Companies  of  your  State  to  coerce  you  into  the 
exchange  of  their  bonds  for  those  of  the  State,  before  the  iron  is 
laid  upon  their  tracks  is  looked  upon  here  as  nothing  less  than 
an  attempt  to  defraud  &  swindle  the  State  and  has  already  had 
the  effect  to  throw  suspicion  upon  her  credit  and  place  her  in  a 
false  position.  You  have,  Sir,  a  high  duty  to  fulfill  to  yourself 
and  country  and  let  nothing  deter  you  from  doing  so." 

The  directors  of  the  companies  were  very  bitter  against 
Sibley  for  his  attitude  towards  the  issue  of  bonds.  "Your 
Railroad  decision  has  capped  the  climax,"  J.  J.  Noah  wrote  to 
him  from  Washington,  November  24, 1858,  "and  these  infernal 
railroad  swindlers  consider  you  the  only  obstacle  between  them 
and  the  plunder  of  the  State.  They  will  do  everything  in  their 
power  to  get  you  out  of  the  way.  Governor  Medary  told  me 
this  last  week  when  he  was  here."  Sibley's  friends  felt  at  the 
time  that  he  made  a  serious  mistake  in  giving  in  to  the  manda- 
mus. "It  is  reported  here,"  H.  Dollner  wrote  to  Sibley  from 
New  York  on  December  2,  1858,  "that  you  would  probably 
have  resisted  the  mandamus  of  the  Supreme  Court  if  you  could 
have  done  it,  and  had  you  done  it,  you  would  have  become  a 
financial  &  political  hero  of  the  Andrew  Jackson  stamp.  I  had 
for  a  few  days  a  strong  desire  that  you  should  have  come  here; 
but  since  I  learn  that  you  have  been  obliged  to  submit  to  your 
courts  and  as  it  is  known  that  you  are  V.  President  of  one  of 
the  R.  R.  Cos.  I  fear  that  your  presence  would  not  give  that 
weight  which  it  certainly  would  have  given  had  you  been  here 
with  Dr.  Borup."16 

16  In  1 871  while  in  the  State  legislature,  Sibley  made  a  speech  explaining  his  reasons  for 
giving  in  to  the  mandamus  proceeding  and  expressing  his  regrets  that  he  did  not  refuse  to  issue 
the  bonds.    See  Chapter  XI  below. 


I42  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

When  Sibley  decided  to  sign  and  issue  the  bonds,  he  deter- 
mined to  do  the  next  best  thing  in  his  power  and  ruled  that  the 
companies  could  receive  only  one-half  the  amount  for  grading 
and  the  other  half  when  sixty-two  and  one-half  miles  of  each 
of  the  four  roads  should  be  completed  and  the  cars  running 
thereon.  The  records  in  the  Governor's  office  contain  the 
affidavits  of  the  railroad  officials  and  reports  from  special 
engineers  sent  out  by  the  Governor  to  inspect  the  work  before 
he  issued  any  bonds  for  construction  work. 

In  spite  of  the  victory  of  the  companies  over  Governor 
Sibley,  capital  was  not  forthcoming  from  the  East.  J.  W. 
North  again  wrote  to  Sibley  from  New  York,  December  2,  1858, 
urging  him  to  come  East  at  once.  "Almost  all  the  papers  of  the 
city  have  attacked  us,"  he  wrote,  "and  nothing  but  a  statement 
from  the  Governor  can  put  matters  right.  The  bare  idea  that 
there  is  a  fight  between  the  Companies  and  the  Governor 
ruins  the  credit  of  the  State.  ...  I  am  now  loaded  with  calls 
for  money  from  our  company  and  contractors;  but  I  cannot 
raise  a  dollar  till  you  get  here  and  assure  the  people  officially 
that  the  bonds  are  alright.  And  how  it  is  that  you  can  take  the 
matter  so  coolly  I  cannot  imagine."  Only  two  days  later  North 
again  wrote  to  Sibley,  and  this  time  he  was  in  the  depths  of 
despair.  "Your  delay  has  spoiled  everything.  Our  credit  as  a 
State  and  as  a  company  is  ruined.  If  you  had  come,  as  you 
agreed  to,  we  might  have  breasted  the  storm.  But  now  I  fear 
it  is  too  late.  .  .  .  You  might  have  saved  us  if  you  would; 
but  you  have  chosen  to  let  Dr.  Borup  direct  &  both  our  com- 
pany and  our  contractors  are  ruined.  You  can  draw  what 
comfort  you  can  from  such  reflection;  I  confess  I  can  get  none." 

Sibley  started  East  on  December  8,  1858,  to  see  what  he 
could  do  in  regard  to  negotiating  the  bonds,17  but  he  was  en- 
tirely unsuccessful.18    By  January,  i860,  the  bonds  were  selling 

17  Pioneer,  Dec.  8,  1858;  Minnesotian,  Dec.  10,  1858. 

18  Sibley's  testimony  as  reported  in  pamphlet  "United  States  Circuit  Court,  Selah  Cham- 
berlain vs.  Southern  Minnesota  and  the  St.  Paul  &  Sioux  City  RR.  Co."  p.  55,  in  volume  on 
"Five  Million  Loan"  in  the  library  of  the  Minnesota  Historical  Society.  Sibley  ascribed  hi? 
failure  to  the  action  of  the  Minnesotian.    See  also  Chapter  XI  below. 


ADVENT  OF  THE  RAILROAD  I43 

at  twenty-five  or  thirty  cents  on  the  dollar.19  The  people  of  the 
State  were  entirely  disgusted  with  the  way  things  turned  out 
and  when  the  Republicans  gained  control  of  the  State  adminis- 
tration in  i860,  partly  no  doubt  as  a  result  of  this  railroad  epi- 
sode during  the  Democratic  administration,  the  legislature  was 
hostile  to  the  railroad  companies.  A  committee  of  the  legisla- 
ture made  an  extended  report  of  the  situation  on  February  3, 
i860,  in  which  they  said:  "They  (the  companies)  have  not  pro- 
ceeded according  to  the  spirit  of  the  amendment  to  insure  the 
construction  of  the  Land  Grant  Railroads.  So  far  as  your 
Committee  can  discover,  the  Companies,  since  the  passage  of 
the  Loan  Amendment,  have  not  furnished  one  dollar  of  capital 
to  aid  in  carrying  on  their  gigantic  enterprise.  They  have  sold 
and  hypothecated  large  portions  of  their  bonds  at  ruinous  dis- 
count. They  have  paid  extravagant  salaries  to  incompetent  or 
inefficient  officers.  With  the  exception  of  about  fifty  miles  of 
well  built  superstructure,  incomplete,  fragmentary  and  dis- 
jointed portions  of  grading,  costing  on  the  average  less  than 
#3,000  per  mile,  are  all  that  these  companies  can  show  in  return 
for  the  munificent  issue  of  bonds  made  to  them  by  the  State. 
The  State  is  immeasurably  worse  off  today  than  if  the  Land 
Grant  still  remained  in  the  State,  and  not  a  foot  of  ground 
broken.  .  .  .  The  bonds  issued  to  the  companies  have  been, 
to  a  great  extent,  misapplied.  .  .  .  The  credit  of  the  State 
has  been  temporarily  embarrassed,  and  the  people  have  got  no 
completed  Railroads.  .  .  .  The  three  companies  which  have 
defaulted  are  without  means  or  credit.  Not  a  bond  should 
have  been  issued  to  the  companies  unless  they  had  the  means 
and  knew  how  they  could  complete  the  roads.  It  was  not  con- 
templated that  they  should  construct  a  few  miles  of  unfinished 


19  Dousman  to  Sibley,  Jan.  26,  i860.  Dousman  had  bought  some  of  the  bonds  at  50,  and 
asked  Sibley's  advice  about  buying  more.  In  his  speech  in  1871  Sibley  said:  "The  failure  to 
place  the  bonds  in  New  York,  except  to  a  very  limited  extent,  gave  a  finishing  blow  to  their 
value  in  the  market,  although  an  effort  was  made  to  resuscitate  them  at  home,  where  they  were 
taken  by  the  State  Auditor  as  securities  for  banking  issues  to  a  limited  extent,  upon  the  presen- 
tation of  affidavits  of  responsible  citizens  that  bona  fide  sales  of  the  bonds  had  actually  been  made 
for  ninety-five  cents  on  the  dollar."    Speech  reported  in  Pioneer,  Feb.  9,  1871. 


144  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

road  beds  which  the  elements  would  soon  obliterate.  A  poor 
return  this  for,  first,  the  liberal  grant  of  lands  donated  by  Con- 
gress, and,  second,  of  $5,000,000  of  bonds  to  be  issued  by  the 
State.  To  expend  the  bonds  without  finishing  the  roads,  at 
least  in  part,  was  a  gross  perversion  of  the  object  and  purpose 
of  the  loan.  .  .  .  The  greatest  misfortune  of  the  five  million 
loan  policy  was  the  utter  impracticability.  In  the  first  place, 
the  loan  was  a  great  deal  too  large  to  be  borne  by  the  people  of 
the  State  in  its  infancy,  and  at  a  time  when  a  financial  revulsion 
had  paralysed  the  energy  of  the  West.  Again,  the  management 
fell  into  the  hands  of  men  without  the  business  capacity  or 
financial  ability  to  accomplish  their  undertaking.  .  .  .  The 
great  question,  therefore,  is,  not  so  much  what  have  been  the 
errors  of  the  past,  as  what  shall  be  the  policy  of  the  future.  In 
fixing  that  policy,  two  important  questions  demand  solution. 
How  shall  the  State  secure  herself  against  further  loss  and  how 
shall  the  State  dispose  of  her  obligations."20  The  committee 
recommended  that  the  State  foreclose  the  mortgage  on  the  road 
beds  and  pass  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  for  the  settle- 
ment of  the  Railroad  bonds. 

When  Ramsey  succeeded  Sibley  as  Governor  on  January  1, 
i860,  he  recommended  a  settlement  of  the  bond  question,  but 
the  people  were  determined  not  to  pay  them.  The  validity  of 
the  constitutional  amendment  was  attacked  because  it  was 
ratified  on  April  15,  1858,  and  the  State  was  not  admitted  until 
May  1 1,  1858.  It  was  also  claimed  that  the  railroad  companies 
were  obligated  to  pay  the  principal  and  interest,  and  that  the 
people  of  the  State  never  intended  that  the  amount  should  ever 
become  a  State  obligation.  The  only  action  taken  by  the  legis- 
lature was  to  propose  two  more  amendments  to  the  Constitu- 
tion, both  of  which  were  promptly  ratified.  One  provided  that 
the  amendment  of  1858  should  be  expunged,  and  the  other  pro- 
vided that  no  settlement  of  the  Railroad  Bond  question  should 
be  valid  until  it  had  been  approved  by  the  electors  of  the  State 

20  Pamphlet  No.  6,  pp.  1-5,  in  volume  on  "Five  Million  Loan,"  in  library  of  the  Minnesota 
Historical  Society. 


ADVENT  OF  THE  RAILROAD  I45 

by  a  referendum  vote.  In  this  form  the  question  went  through 
many  years  of  Minnesota  politics.  Some  $2,275,000  worth  of 
bonds  had  been  issued  and  still  there  were  no  railroads  in 
Minnesota.  Other  attempts  were  made  to  reorganize  the  com- 
panies and  secure  the  construction  of  the  roads,  but  it  was  not 
until  1862  that  the  first  line  was  put  in  operation,  and  that 
was  only  a  short  intrastate  line.21 

21  For  the  final  outcome  of  the  Railroad  Bond  question  and  its  probable  effect  upon  Sibley's 
public  career,  see  Chapter  XI,  below. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  LAST  STAND  OF  THE  SIOUX  INDIANS 
IN  MINNESOTA 

The  most  serious  Indian  massacre  in  American  History- 
took  place  in  the  valley  of  the  Minnesota  river  in  the  summer 
of  1862.  The  uprising  of  the  Sioux  in  their  last  stand  against 
the  white  men  for  possession  of  the  soil  of  Minnesota  differed 
from  other  conflicts  on  the  frontier  chiefly  in  the  area  involved 
and  the  number  of  victims  slain.  Similar  causes  had  produced 
similar  conflicts  over  and  over  again  as  the  pressure  of  popula- 
tion pushed  the  Indians  farther  and  farther  towards  the  setting 
sun.  King  Philip,  Pontiac,  Tecumseh,  Black  Hawk,  and  Little 
Crow  all  tried  in  vain  to  stem  the  tide  of  white  immigration. 
The  story  of  the  frontier  is  a  story  of  the  conflict  of  two  races 
and  civilizations  which  could  have  but  one  ending,  the  removal 
or  extermination  of  the  interior  race. 

The  fundamental  cause  of  the  Sioux  War,  as  of  most  of  our 
Indian  troubles,  was  the  erroneous  policy  of  the  United  States 
government  in  dealing  with  the  Indian  tribes.1  Deep  dissatis- 
faction had  been  felt  among  the  Sioux  Indians  of  Minnesota 
since  the  negotiation  of  the  treaties  of  185 1,  and  the  Indians  had 
not  become  reconciled  to  the  settlement  of  the  traders*  claims 
which  had  been  forced  upon  them  at  that  time.2  The  delay 
in  the  enforcement  of  the  treaties  increased  the  resentment  of 
the  Indians,  especially  the  delay  in  the  payment  of  the  annuities 
in  1 862.  The  Indians  assembled  in  June  of  that  year  to  receive 
the  money  and  waited  week  after  week  while,  as  they  said, 

1  See  Chapter  VII  above. 

2  In  September,  1862,  when  the  Republican  paper,  The  Minnesotian,  was  denouncing 
Sibley  for  the  slow  movement  of  his  military  forces,  The  Pioneer  and  Democrat  retaliated  by  plac- 
ing the  chief  blame  for  the  Sioux  War  upon  Ramsey  for  his  part  in  connection  with  the  traders' 
paper.    Pioneer  and  Democrat ',  Sept.  10,  1862. 

I46 


LAST  STAND  OF  THE  SIOUX  INDIANS  I47 

their  families  were  starving.  The  money  did  not  arrive  in 
Minnesota  until  August  when  the  patience  of  the  Indians  had 
been  exhausted  and  the  outbreak  was  actually  under  way.  In 
addition  to  these  causes  the  existence  of  factions  among  the 
Sioux  themselves  no  doubt  helped  to  bring  on  the  trouble. 
During  the  last  years  of  Buchanan's  administration  Joseph  R. 
Brown  had  been  Indian  Agent  among  the  Sioux  and  had 
exerted  great  influence  over  them  to  the  end  that  more  of  them 
than  usual  took  up  the  ways  of  white  men,  or,  in  other  words, 
became  "farmer  Indians."  The  "blanket  Indians,"  those  who 
retained  their  native  customs,  had  a  feeling  of  resentment 
against  the  former  and  against  the  whites  for  interferring  with 
their  wild  life.3  With  the  election  of  Lincoln  there  was,  as  was 
usual  in  such  changes  of  administration,  a  change  in  Indian 
officials.  Great  promises  seem  to  have  been  made  by  these 
officials,  which  were  not  realized  as  the  Indians  expected,  and 
this,  together  with  the  usual  disregard  of  the  rights  of  the 
Indians  on  the  part  of  certain  whites,  added  to  the  unstable 
situation  on  the  frontier.  Finally,  the  Indians  knew  that 
thousands  of  men  had  left  the  North  for  southern  battlefields, 
and  reports  were  current  that  the  Northern  arms  were  not  faring 
well  and  that  the  Union  would  probably  be  dissolved.4  It  has 
been  stated,  and  was  at  that  time  believed  by  many  of  the 
people  of  Minnesota,  that  Southern  agents  were  at  work  among 
the  Sioux  inciting  them  to  insurrection,  but  no  conclusive  proof 
of  this  has  been  found.  The  Indians  knew,  however,  that  white 
men  and  half-breeds  had  left  the  region  near  the  reservations 
to  go  South  with  the  army,  and  it  probably  seemed  to  many  of 
the  Indians  an  opportune  time  for  a  decisive  stand  against  the 
whites.  Contemporaries  were  inclined  to  believe  that  plans 
had  been  made  in  advance  by  Little  Crow,  even  involving  an 
agreement  with  the  Chippewas  under  Hole-in-the-Day,  but  the 
evidence  does  not  substantiate  such  belief.5    It  was  realized  by 

3  Chief  Big  Eagle,  "A  Sioux  Story  of  the  War,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  6:385. 

4  A  further  evidence  of  weakness  in  the  whites  in  the  minds  of  the  Indians  was  the  failure 
of  the  United  States  to  capture  and  punish  Inkpaduta  for  his  raid  in  1857. 

6  Several  citations  of  authorities  giving  views  that  vhere  was  a  prearranged  plan  are  to  be 
found  in  Minnesota  History  Bulletin,  1 1437,  note. 


I48  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

the  whites  that  there  was  a  feeling  of  restlessness  and  dissatis- 
faction among  the  Indians  which  might  lead  to  trouble,  but 
seemingly  the  signs  were  but  little  more  serious,  if  at  all,  just 
before  the  outbreak  than  they  had  been  at  any  other  time 
since  1851.6 

While  all  of  these  general  causes  were  operating  which  might 
have  brought  trouble  on  the  frontier  at  any  time,  the  actual 
beginning  of  hostilities  in  1 862  appear  to  have  been  quite  acci- 
dental and  came  as  a  complete  surprise  to  the  settlers.  There 
are  several  versions  as  to  the  scene  enacted  at  Acton  in  Meeker 
county  on  Sunday  afternoon,  August  17,  1862.  According  to 
Chief  Big  Eagle,  in  his  story  of  the  war,  some  young  braves 
came  upon  a  hen's  nest  and  one  of  them  took  the  eggs  where- 
upon one  of  his  companions  remonstrated  with  him  because  the 
eggs  belonged  to  a  white  man  and  it  might  cause  trouble  for 
the  Indians.  The  latter  was  then  accused  of  being  a  coward 
afraid  of  the  whites,  whereupon,  in  order  to  show  his  bravery, 
he  said  that  he  was  not  afraid  to  shoot  a  white  man  and  dared 
the  others  to  go  with  him,  the  affair  resulting  in  the  murder  of 
the  first  whites.  The  murderers,  according  to  this  story,  then 
fled  to  their  tribe  and  reported  what  had  happened.  The 
Indians  then  held  a  council  and  decided  to  go  upon  the  war- 
path, since  blood  had  already  been  shed.7  According  to  another 
story,  six  Indians,  said  to  be  of  Shakopee's  band  of  Lower 
Sioux,  appeared  at  the  home  of  Robinson  Jones  and  asked  for 
food  which  was  refused  them.  Their  action  being  threatening, 
Jones  took  his  family  over  to  a  neighbor  named  Baker  where 
there  was  visiting  that  day  a  Mr.  Webster  and  his  family.  The 
Indians  followed  and  proposed  a  shooting  match  which  was 

6  The  general  feeling  of  alarm  had  existed  at  least  since  1857  when  volunteer  militia  com- 
panies were  organized.  Flandrau  to  Huebschmann,  April  16,  1857,  in  Commissioner  of  Indians 
Report ,  1857,  p.  72.  Also  Thomas  Williamson  to  T.  J.  Galbraith,  June  2,  1862,  in  Minnesota 
in  the  Civil  and  Indian  Wars,  2:162-163.  Williamson  urged  that  at  least  as  many  soldiers  as 
usual  be  present  at  the  payment  of  annunities  in  order  to  convince  the  Indians  that  the  frontier 
was  not  wholly  unprotected.  Williamson  thought  that  the  restlessness  among  the  Indians 
threatened  trouble. 

7  Chief  Big  Eagle,  "A  Sioux  Story  of  the  War,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  6:389. 


LAST  STAND  OF  THE  SIOUX  INDIANS  I49 

agreed  to  by  the  whites.  They  all  fired  at  the  mark  and  began 
reloading.  The  Indians  finished  reloading  first  and  immedi- 
ately shot  Jones.  Mrs.  Jones  and  Mrs.  Baker  were  standing  in 
the  door  and  an  Indian  levelled  a  gun  at  Mrs.  Baker  whose 
husband  sprang  between  them  and  received  the  bullet  in  his 
body.  The  Indians  then  shot  Webster  and  Mrs.  Jones.  Mrs. 
Baker  fainted  when  her  husband  was  shot  and  fell  backwards 
into  the  cellar,  thus  escaping  being  murdered.  The  Indians 
then  went  back  to  the  Jones  house  and  killed  a  young  girl  who 
had  been  left  there  and  then  returned  to  their  tribe.8  Once 
begun,  the  Indians  moved  with  great  rapidity  and  fell  upon  the 
settlers  before  they  knew  of  any  trouble.  On  Monday  August 
18,  there  were  massacres  along  the  Minnesota  river  above  New 
Ulm,  and  the  latter  place  was  attacked  on  the  following  day. 
On  Wednesday  Fort  Ridgley  was  surprised,  but,  in  spite  of 
repeated  attacks  during  three  days,  the  place  held  out.  On 
Saturday  August  23  New  Ulm  was  again  attacked.  The  place 
was  ably  defended  by  Judge  Flandrau,  but  on  Monday  August 
25  it  was  abandoned  and  the  people  taken  to  Mankato.9 

The  news  of  the  outbreak  reached  St.  Paul  on  Tuesday 
August  19,  and  Governor  Ramsey  immediately  went  to  Fort 
Snelling  where  orders  were  issued  for  four  companies  of  soldiers 
to  start  for  the  scene  of  the  disturbance.  On  the  same  day 
Governor  Ramsey  appointed  Sibley  as  Colonel  in  charge  of  the 
expedition.10  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  there  were  not  enough 
troops  and  that  what  few  there  were,  were  inadequately  armed 
and  provisioned,  so  great  was  the  panic  on  the  frontier  that  the 
soldiers  were  started  immediately  up  the  Minnesota  river.  On 
the  following  day  Sibley  wrote  to  Ramsey  that  the  Austrian 
rifles  with  which  the  men  were  armed  were  "a  very  poor  affair" 
and  that  the  ammunition  was  too  large  for  the  rifles  and  had  to 

8  Bryant  and  Merch,  A  History  of  the  Great  Sioux  Massacre  by  the  Sioux  Indians,  84-85. 

9  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  9:439. 

10  Ramsey  to  Stanton,  Secretary  of  War,  Aug.  1 9, 1 862,  in  Records,  Executive  Office,  1858-62 , 
p.  590,  in  archives  of  the  Governor's  office.  Also  Ramsey  to  Malmros,  Adjutant  General,  in 
Minnesota  in  the  Civil  and  Indian  Wars,  2:165.    Also  Pioneer  and  Democrat,  Aug.  20,  1862. 


I50  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

be  sent  back  to  Fort  Snelling.  "We  shall  need  more  guns, 
more  ammunition,  and  more  men,"  he  wrote.11 

The  settlers  in  the  Minnesota  valley  abandoned  their  homes 
and  fled  in  terror  towards  the  Mississippi.12  Destruction  and 
desolation  were  evident  everywhere,  and  Sibley,  realizing  the 
seriousness  of  the  situation,  called  continually  for  more  men  to 
crush  the  uprising.  "There  is  no  use  to  disguise  the  fact,"  he 
wrote,  "that  unless  we  can  now,  and  very  effectually,  crush 
this  rising  the  State  is  ruined,  and  some  of  its  fairest  portions  will 
revert  for  years  into  the  possession  of  these  miserable  wretches 
who,  among  all  devils  in  human  shape,  are  among  the  most 
cruel  and  ferocious.  To  appreciate  this,  one  must  see,  as  I  have, 
the  mutilated  bodies  of  their  victims.  My  heart  is  steeled 
against  them,  and  if  I  have  the  means,  and  can  catch  them,  I 
will  sweep  them  with  the  besom  of  death.  Don't  think  there 
is  exaggeration  in  the  terrible  pictures  given  by  individuals. 
They  fall  short  of  the  dreadful  reality.  This  very  moment  the 
work  of  destruction  is  going  on  within  ten  miles,  and  yet  I  have 
not  mounted  force  enough  to  spare  for  chasing  and  destroying 
the  rascals."13 

About  daybreak  on  September  3, 1862,  the  Indians  attacked 
a  detachment  of  troops  at  Birch  Coolie,  and  a  very  sharp 
engagement  took  place.  After  a  few  hours  the  Indians  were 
driven  into  the  timber  from  which  they  kept  up  a  continuous 
fire  for  some  thirty-three  hours.  On  the  following  day  re- 
enforcements  for  Sibley  arrived  and  the  Indians  withdrew.14 

As  the  great  handicap  of  Sibley's  force  was  the  lack  of 
mounted  men  with  which  to  pursue  the  Indians,  Governor 
Ramsey  telegraphed  to  the  Secretary  of  War  for  five  hundred 
horses,  and  upon  his  refusal  to  supply  them  at  once,  he  appealed 
directly  to  President  Lincoln.    "This  is  not  our  war,"  he  said; 

11  Sibley  to  Ramsey,  Aug.  20,  1862,  in  Minnesota  in  the  Civil  and  Indian  Wars.,  2:165. 

12  On  August  22,  1862,  Governor  Ramsey  issued  a  proclamation  calling  upon  the  people 
not  to  be  unduly  alarmed  and  flee  from  their  homes  in  regions  where  there  was  no  immediate 
danger.    Records,  Executive  Office  1858-1862,  pp.  634-636,  in  archives  of  Governor's  office. 

13  Sibley  to  Ramsey,  letter  published  in  Pioneer  and  Democrat,  Aug.  26,  1862. 

14  Letter  from  Captain  Joseph  Anderson  to  his  wife,  published  in  the  Pioneer  and  Democrat , 
Sept.  7,  1862. 


LAST  STAND  OF  THE  SIOUX  INDIANS  151 

"It  is  a  national  war.  I  hope  you  will  direct  the  purchase  or 
send  us  five  hundred  horses,  or  order  the  Minnesota  companies 
of  horse  in  Kentucky  and  Tennessee  home.  Answer  me  at 
once.  More  than  500  whites  have  been  murdered  by  the 
Indians."15 

Although  unable  to  supply  the  mounted  force  at  once,  the 
authorities  at  Washington  realized  the  seriousness  of  the  situa- 
tion and  created  the  military  department  of  the  Northwest  and 
sent  Major-General  John  Pope,  who  had  recently  been  relieved 
of  his  command  of  the  army  of  the  Potomac,  to  take  charge  with 
headquarters  in  St.  Paul.  He  was  directed  to  "take  such 
prompt  and  vigorous  measures  as  shall  quell  the  hostilities  and 
afford  peace,  security,  and  protection  to  the  people  against 
Indian  hostilities. "16 

It  has  already  been  pointed  out  that  the  lack  of  men,  equip- 
ment, and  provisions  caused  Sibley's  expedition  to  move  more 
slowly  than  it  otherwise  would  have  done.  The  people  of  the 
State  did  not  understand  the  reason  for  the  delay  and  many 
well-meaning  people  unmercifully  criticised  Sibley  for  not 
taking  immediate  action  against  the  Indians.  The  republican 
press,  and  especially  the  Minnesotian,  was  particularly  bitter 
against  him.17  While  Sibley  would  have  moved  faster  if  it  had 
been  possible,  yet  he  had  another  object  in  mind  which  demanded 
cautious  action  on  his  part.  The  Indians  had  captured  some 
three  hundred  prisoners,  mostly  women  and  children,  and  Sibley 
feared  that  hasty  action  on  his  part  would  cause  the  Indians  to 
massacre  all  the  prisoners.  With  a  view  of  obtaining  some 
knowledge  of  the  number  and  the  condition  of  the  prisoners  by 
inducing  Little  Crow  to  send  a  half-breed  for  a  conference, 

16  Ramsey  to  Lincoln,  Sept.  6,  1862,  in  Minnesota  in  the  Civil  and  Indian  Wars,  2:225. 

16  Stanton  to  Pope,  Sept.  6,  1862,  in  Minnesota  in  the  Civil  and  Indian  Wars,  2:226. 

17  The  Missionary  Riggs  expressed  the  situation  clearly  in  a  letter  to  Ramsey:  "I  became 
pretty  well  acquainted  with  the  feeling  that  then  existed  in  regard  to  this  expedition — that  the 
movements  were  too  slow  and  cautious.  I  confess  that  I  sympathized  somewhat  in  this  feeling. 
.  .  .  In  looking  at  the  past  and  the  present  I  am  satisfied  that  Colonel  Sibley  has  acted  wisely 
in  not  advancing  until  he  is  well  prepared  for  offence  and  defence.  The  safety  of  his  command 
requires  it.  He  is  anxious  to  go  forward  at  the  earliest  practicable  moment.  At  the  same  time 
this  necessary  delay  for  ammunition  is  likely  to  work  good  in  regard  to  the  prisoners.  If  so,  we 
shall  none  of  us  regret  it."    Minnesota  in  the  Civil  and  Indian  Wars,  2:226-7. 


IJ2  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

Sibley  left  the  following  note  on  a  stake  on  the  battlefield  of 
Birch  Coolie: 

"If  Little  Crow  has  any  proposition  to  make  to  me  let  him  send  a  half- 
breed  to  me,  and  he  shall  be  protected  in  and  out  of  my  camp." 

The  half-breed  came  with  the  following  letter  from  Little 
Crow: 

"Dr.  Sir, 

for  what  reason  we  have  commenced  this  war  I  will  tell  you.  it  is  on 
account  of  Maj.  Galbraith,  we  made  a  treaty  with  the  Government  a  beg 
for  what  lettle  we  do  get  and  then  cant  get  it  till  our  children  was  dieing  with 
hunger — it  was  with  the  traders  that  commence  Mr  A.  J.  Myrick  told  the 
Indians  that  they  would  eat  grass  or  their  own  dung.  Then  Mr  Forbes  told 
the  lower  Sioux  that  were  not  men  then  Robert  he  was  making  with  his  friends 
how  to  defraud  us  of  our  money.  If  the  young  braves  have  push  the  white 
man  I  have  done  this  myself.  So  I  want  you  to  let  the  governor  Ramsey 
know  this.  I  have  great  many  prisoners  women  and  children  it  aint  all  our 
fault  the  Winnebagoes  was  in  the  engagement,  two  of  them  was  killed.  I 
want  you  to  give  answer  by  bearer  all  at  present. 

Yours  truly 
his 
Friend  Little  x  Crow."" 
mark 

On  September  12,  Little  Crow  sent  word  to  Sibley  that  he 
had  one  hundred  prisoners  who  were  well  cared  for,  and  asked 
how  he  could  make  peace.  Sibley  demanded  the  return  of  the 
prisoners  before  he  would  consider  any  proposition  of  peace. 
At  the  same  time  two  friendly  Chiefs,  Wabasha  and  Taopi, 
sent  a  secret  communication  to  Sibley  offering  to  turn  over  the 
prisoners  if  arrangements  could  be  made.  Sibley  told  them  that 
if  they  would  get  the  prisoners  and  all  friendly  Indians  who 
were  in  Little  Crow's  camp  out  on  the  open  prairie  in  day  time 
and  come  to  his  camp  under  a  flag  of  truce,  they  would  be 
received  by  him.  From  this  time  until  the  prisoners  were 
finally  surrendered,  two  weeks  later,  Sibley  was  hoping  for  the 
friendly  Indians  to  get  an  opportunity  to  get  away  from  Little 
Crow.19 

18  Published  in  the  Pioneer  and  Democrat ,  Sept.  1 1, "1862. 

19  Pioneer  and  Democrat ,  Sept.  16,  1862. 


LAST  STAND  OF  THE  SIOUX  INDIANS  1 53 

In  the  meantime,  the  most  serious  battle  of  the  campaign 
took  place.  Sibley  left  Fort  Ridgley  on  September  19  and 
reached  Wood  Lake,  near  the  Yellow  Medicine  river,  on 
September  22.  On  the  following  day  he  was  attacked  by  some 
three  hundred  warriors,  but,  after  two  hours  of  hard  fighting, 
he  succeeded  in  defeating  them.  One  reason  that  more  war- 
riors did  not  take  part  in  the  battle  was  because  the  group  of 
"friendly"  Indians  who,  as  Sibley  wrote,  had  opposed  the  war 
"but  were  driven  into  the  field  by  the  more  violent,"  were 
looking  for  an  opportunity  to  turn  the  prisoners  over  to 
Sibley.20  After  the  battle  of  Wood  Lake,  Little  Crow  and  his 
followers  fled,  and  the  "friendly"  Indians  then  had  their  oppor- 
tunity to  surrender  and  turn  the  prisoners  over  to  Sibley.  The 
account  of  this  surrender  is  best  told  in  Sibley's  own  words: 
"I  entered,  with  my  officers,  to  the  center  of  the  circle  formed 
by  the  numerous  lodges,  and  seeing  the  old  savage  whom  I 
knew  personally  as  the  individual  with  stentorian  lungs,  who 
promulgated  the  orders  of  the  chiefs  and  head  men  to  the  multi- 
tude, I  beckoned  him  to  me,  and,  in  a  peremptory  tone,  ordered 
him  to  go  through  the  camp  and  notify  the  tenants  that  I 
demanded  all  the  female  captives  to  be  brought  to  me  instanter. 
And  now  was  presented  a  scene  which  no  one  who  witnessed 
it  can  ever  forget.  From  the  lodges  there  issued  more  than  one 
hundred  comely  young  girls  and  women,  most  of  whom  were  so 
scantily  clad  as  scarcely  to  conceal  their  nakedness.  On  the 
persons  of  some  hung  but  a  single  garment,  while  pitying  half- 
breeds  and  Indian  women  had  provided  others  with  scraps  of 
clothing  from  their  own  little  wardrobes,  answering,  indeed,  a 
mere  temporary  purpose.  But  a  worst  accoutered,  or  more 
distressed,  group  of  civilized  beings  imagination  would  fail  to 
picture.  Some  seemed  stolid,  as  if  their  minds  had  been  strained 
to  madness  and  reaction  had  brought  vacant  gloom,  indiffer- 
ence, and  despair.     They  gazed  with  a  sad  stare.     Others 

20  Sibley  to  Ramsey,  Sept.  23, 1862,  published  in  St.  Paul  Pioneer,  Sept.  27, 1862.    (The 
name  of  this  paper  was  changed  from  Pioneer  and  Democrat  back  to  the  original  name  Pioneer 
on  September  25,  1862.) 


154  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

acted  differently.  The  great  body  of  the  poor  creatures  rushed 
madly  to  the  spot  where  I  was  standing  with  my  brave  officers, 
pressing  as  close  as  possible,  grasping  our  hands  and  clinging 
to  our  limbs,  as  if  fearful  that  the  red  devils  might  yet  reclaim 
their  victims.  I  did  all  I  could  to  reassure  them,  by  telling  them 
they  were  now  to  be  released  from  their  sufferings  and  freed 
from  their  bondage.  Many  were  hysterical,  bordering  on  con- 
vulsions, laughter  and  tears  commingling,  incredulous  that 
they  were  in  the  hands  of  their  preservers.  A  few  of  the  more 
attractive  had  been  offered  the  alternative  of  becoming  the 
temporary  wives  of  select  warriors,  and  so,  helpless  and  power- 
less, yet  escaped  the  promiscuous  attentions  of  a  horde  of 
savages  bent  on  brutal  insult  revolting  to  conceive,  and  impos- 
sible to  describe.  The  majority  of  these  outraged  girls  and 
young  women  were  of  a  superior  class,  some  were  school  teach- 
ers, who,  accompanied  by  their  girl  pupils,  had  gone  to  pass 
their  summer  vacation  with  relatives  or  friends  in  the  border 
counties  of  the  State.  The  settlers,  both  native  and  foreign, 
were,  for  the  most  part,  respectable,  prosperous,  and  educated 
citizens  whose  wives  and  daughters  had  been  afforded  the 
privileges  of  a  good  common  school  education.  Such  were  the 
delicate  young  girls  and  women  who  had  been  subjected  for 
weeks  to  the  inhuman  embraces  of  hundreds  of  filthy  savages 
utterly  devoid  of  all  compassion  for  the  sufferers.  Escorting 
the  captives  to  the  outside  of  the  camp,  they  were  placed  under 
the  protection  of  the  troops  and  taken  to  our  own  encampment, 
where  I  had  ordered  tents  to  be  pitched  for  their  accommoda- 
tion. Officers  and  men,  affected  even  to  tears  by  the  scene, 
denuded  themselves  of  their  entire  underclothing,  blankets, 
coats,  and  whatever  they  could  give,  or  could  be  converted  into 
raiment  for  these  heartbroken  and  abused  victims  of  savage 
lust  and  rage.  The  only  white  man  found  alive  when  we  reached 
the  Indian  encampment  was  George  H.  Spencer,  who  was 
saved  from  death  by  the  heroic  devotion  of  his  Indian  comrade, 
but  was  badly  wounded.  He  said  to  me:  'It  is  God's  mercy, 
that  you  did  not  march  here  on  the  night  after  the  battle. 


LAST  STAND  OF  THE  SIOUX  INDIANS  I  55 

A  plan  was  formed,  had  you  done  so,  to  murder  the  captives, 
then  scatter  to  the  prairies, — thus  verifying  my  prediction  of 
the  course  they  would  pursue.  I  bless  God  for  the  wisdom  he 
gave  me,  and  whereby,  with  the  aid  of  my  brave  men,  in  spite 
of  all  slander  and  abuse,  I  was  enabled  to  win  a  victory  so 
decisive,  and  redeem  from  their  thraldom  those  unfortunate 
sufferers  who  were  a  burden  on  my  heart  from  the  first  moment 
of  the  campaign."21 

Along  with  the  friendly  Indians,  some  of  those  who  had 
taken  part  in  the  massacres  came  to  Sibley's  camp.  Of  those 
who  surrendered,  Sibley  reported  to  General  Pope  that  sixteen 
were  thus  suspected.  "If  found  guilty,"  he  wrote,  "they  will 
be  immediately  executed,  although  I  am  somewhat  in  doubt 
whether  my  authority  extends  quite  so  far.  An  example  is, 
however,  imperatively  necessary,  and  I  trust  that  you  will 
approve  the  act,  should  it  happen  that  some  of  the  real  criminals 
have  been  seized  and  promptly  disposed  of."22 

On  September  27,  1862,  Sibley  asked  to  be  relieved  of  his 
command.  In  a  letter  to  General  Pope  he  stated  that  two  of 
the  objects  of  the  expedition  had  been  accomplished,  the 
checking  and  beating  of  the  Indians  and  relieving  the  settle- 
ments, and  the  delivery  of  the  prisoners  held  by  the  Indians. 
He  stated  his  belief  that  "a  strictly  military  commander" 
would  be  better  fitted  for  the  task  of  following  up  and  exter- 
minating the  Indians  than  himself  and  said  that  his  private 
affairs  demanded  his  personal  attention.23  Instead  of  Sibley 
being  relieved,  however,  he  was  made  a  Brigadier  General  in 
the  United  States  army  and  left  in  immediate  charge  of  the 
expedition.24 

General  Pope  shared  Sibley's  determination  to  exterminate 
the  Sioux  and  remove  once  for  all  this  menace  to  the  frontier 

21  Sibley's  Notes  on  the  Indian  War,  published  in  West,  Sibley,  276. 

22  Sibley  to  Pope,  Sept.  27,  1862,  published  in  St.  Paul  Pioneer,  Oct.  3,  1862. 

23  Sibley  to  Pope,  Sept.  27,  1862,  published  in  Minnesota  in  the  Civil  and  Indian  Wars, 
2:2  4-255. 

24  Halleck  to  Pope,  Sept.  29, 1862,  in  Minnesota  in  the  Civil  and  Indian  Wars,  2:258.  While 
it  was  yet  uncertain  whether  Sibley  would  accept  the  commission  his  officers  petitoned  him  to 
do  so.    Minnesota  in  the  Civil  and  Indian  Wars,  2 1269-270. 


I56  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

of  Minnesota.  "No  treaty  must  be  made  with  the  Sioux,  even 
should  the  campaign  against  them  be  delayed  until  summer," 
he  wrote.  "If  they  desire  a  council,  let  them  come  in,  but 
seize  Little  Crow  and  all  others  engaged  in  the  late  outrages, 
and  hold  them  prisoners  until  further  orders  from  these  head- 
quarters. It  is  idle  and  wicked,  in  view  of  the  atrocious  mur- 
ders these  Indians  have  committed,  in  face  of  treaties  and 
without  provocation,  to  make  treaties  or  talk  about  keeping  faith 
with  them.  The  horrible  massacres  of  women  and  children 
and  the  outrageous  abuse  of  female  prisoners,  still  alive,  call 
for  punishment  beyond  human  power  to  inflict.  There  will  be 
no  peace  in  this  region  by  virtue  of  treaties  and  Indian  faith.  It 
is  my  purpose  utterly  to  exterminate  the  Sioux  if  I  have  the 
power  to  do  so  and  even  if  it  requires  a  campaign  lasting  the 
whole  of  next  year.  Destroy  everything  belonging  to  them  and 
force  them  out  to  the  plains,  unless,  as  I  suggest,  you  can  cap- 
ture them.  They  are  to  be  treated  as  maniacs  or  wild  beasts 
and  by  no  means  as  people  with  whom  treaties  or  compromises 
can  be  made.  Urge  the  campaign  vigorously;  you  shall  be  vig- 
orously supported  and  supplied."25 

Sibley  was  handicapped  still  by  the  lack  of  provisions  and  a 
sufficient  mounted  force.  On  September  28  he  wrote  to  Flan- 
drau:  "I  am,  as  usual,  out  of  rations,  many  of  my  companies 
having  no  flour  and  bread.  If  I  had  been  furnished  with  300  or 
400  cavalry,  I  could  have  destroyed  two-thirds  of  the  hostile 
Indians  after  the  battle  of  the  23rd."26  Two  days  later  he 
he  wrote  to  Pope:  "The  camp  would  be  in  a  starving  state  but 
for  the  potatoes  found  in  the  Indian  fields."27 

Early  in  October  other  bands  of  Sioux  began  to  come  in 
and  surrender  to  Sibley.  On  October  7,  Sibley  wrote  to  Pope 
that  thirty-seven  lodges  had  surrendered,  twenty  other  lodges 
were  within  ten  or  twelve  miles  of  his  camp,  and  that  fifty 

25  Pope,  to  Sibley,  Sept.  28,  1862,  published  in  Minnesota  in  the  Civil  and  Indian  Wars> 
2:257. 

26  /*;</,  2:258. 
21  Ibid y  2:260. 


LAST  STAND  OF  THE  SIOUX  INDIANS  1 57 

more  were  expected  within  two  or  three  days.  Meanwhile 
Sibley  had  created  a  court  marital  of  army  officers  and  was 
proceeding  to  search  out  those  Indians  who  had  participated 
in  the  massacres.  "I  have  not  yet  examined  the  proceedings 
of  the  military  commission,"  he  wrote  to  Pope,  "but  although 
they  may  not  be  exactly  in  form  in  all  details  I  shall  probably 
approve  them,  and  hang  the  villains  as  soon  as  I  get  hold  of  the 
others.  It  would  not  do  to  precipitate  matters  now,  for  fear 
of  alarming  those  who  are  coming  forward  to  take  their 
chances.  "28 

On  October  10,  Pope  reported  to  Halleck  that  "the  Sioux 
War  is  at  an  end."  He  added  that  it  would  be  necessary  to 
execute  many  of  the  Indians  as  this  procedure  would  have  a 
"crushing  effect. "  He  also  issued  an  address  requesting  all 
frontier  settlers  to  return  to  their  homes.29  He  ordered  Sibley 
to  send  all  the  Indian  captives  to  Fort  Snelling.  This  order 
caused  Sibley  to  suspend  the  execution  of  those  who  had  already 
been  sentenced  to  death,  about  twenty  in  number,  and  to  send 
them  together  with  about  fifteen  hundred  Indians  to  Fort 
Snelling.30 

The  attention  of  the  authorities  and  the  people  of  Minnesota 
now  turned  to  the  question  of  punishing  the  Indians  who  had 
been  found  guilty  by  the  military  commission.  The  settlers 
were  almost  unanimous  in  demanding  the  execution  of  the 
guilty  culprits,  and  were  not  disposed  to  be  too  careful  about 
absolute  justice  to  individual  Indians.  When  it  became 
rumored  about  that  President  Lincoln  intended  to  pardon 
many  of  the  Indians,  the  people  protested  emphatically  against 
such  action.     Almost  alone  among  the  people  of  the  State, 

28  Minnesota  in  the  Civil  and  Indian  Wars,  2  •.id']. 

29  Ibid ',  2:272. 

30  "Your  orders  relative  to  the  disposition  of  the  Indians  will  be  obeyed  as  promptly  as 
possible.  ...  As  the  order  is  imperative  to  send  all  below,  I  shall  suspend  the  execution  of 
the  sentenced  Indians  .  .  .  and  dispatch  them  with  the  others."  Minnesota  in  the  Civil  and 
Indian  Wars,  2:273.  There  is  a  tradition  in  Minnesota  that  the  condemned  Indians  were  kept 
near  Mankato  until  the  time  of  their  execution,  but  the  author  found  no  evidence  that  that  was 
true.  Neither  was  any  order  found  revoking  the  above  mentioned  order  to  send  all  the  Indians 
to  Fort  Snelling. 


I58  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

Bishop  H.  B.  Whipple,  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  raised  his 
voice  in  behalf  of  the  despised  Indian.  Whipple's  ideas  on  the 
Indian  policy  of  the  United  States  Government  were  similar  to 
those  voiced  by  Sibley  during  his  term  in  Congress.  On 
December  3,  1862,  he  wrote  an  open  letter  to  the  editor  of  the 
Pioneer  in  which  he  pointed  out  that  the  white  man  was  not 
entirely  without  blame  for  the  unfortunate  and  distressing 
events  of  the  preceding  months.  He  indicated  two  serious 
mistakes  on  the  part  of  the  United  States.  "Our  first  dealing 
with  them  as  a  government,"  he  wrote,  "was  based  upon  a 
falsehood.  We  purchased  their  lands  as  of  an  independent 
nation,  forgetting  they  were  only  our  heathen  wards.  .  .  .  The 
second  most  fatal  error  was  a  natural  inference  from  the  first. 
Because  we  had  treated  with  them  as  an  independent  nation, 
we  left  them  without  a  government.,,  No  steps  were  taken, 
he  said,  to  restrain  their  savage  warfare;  no  mark  of  condemna- 
tion had  been  placed  upon  their  pagan  customs.  The  annuity 
system  had  not  encouraged  honest  labor,  and  the  sale  of  "fire- 
water had  been  unblushing  when  we  knew  that  if  it  made 
drunkards  of  white  men,  it  made  red  men  devils."  "The  system 
of  trade  was  ruinous  to  honest  traders  and  pernicious  to  the 
Indian.  It  prevented  all  efforts  for  personal  independence  and 
acquisition  of  property.  The  debts  of  the  shiftless  and  indolent 
were  paid  out  of  the  sale  of  the  patrimony  of  the  tribe.  If  the 
Indian  abandoned  his  wild  life,  built  himself  a  house  and  culti- 
vated the  soil,  he  had  no  redress  against  the  lawlessness  of  wild 
men.  .  .  .  Such  a  mistaken  policy  would  be  bad  enough  in  the 
hands  of  the  wisest  and  best  men,  but  it  is  made  an  hundred  fold 
worse  by  making  the  office  of  Indian  Agent  one  simply  of  reward 
for  political  services/'  Bishop  Whipple  affirmed  that  justice 
demanded  punishment  for  the  guilty,  but  "while  we  execute 
justice/'  he  added,  "our  consciousness  of  wrong  should  lead  us 
to  the  strictest  scrutiny,  lest  we  punish  the  innocent.  Punish- 
ment loses  its  lesson  where  it  is  the  vengeance  of  a  mob.  The 
mistaken  cry  to  take  law  into  our  own  hands  is  the  essence  of 
rebellion  itself."    He  also  discussed  the  removal  of  the  Sioux 


LAST  STAND  OF  THE  SIOUX  INDIANS  I59 

which  was  being  demanded  by  Governor  Ramsey  and  the  people 
of  the  State.  "Many  of  these  Indians  have  been  removed 
again  and  again,"  he  wrote,  "and  each  time  been  solemnly 
pledged  that  this  would  be  forever  their  home.  If  a  removal 
were  to  take  place,  we  ought  to  see  that  our  nation  does  its 
whole  duty,  that  they  should  have  a  strong  government,  an 
individual  right  to  the  soil,  a  just  system  of  trade,  a  wise  system  of 
civilization,  and  just  agents.  It  is  due  alike  to  ourselves  and  to 
them  that  these  systems  shall  no  longer  be  foster-parents  to 
mature  savage  violence  and  blood.  Such  a  reform  demands 
the  calmest  thought  of  the  best  men  of  the  nation."31 

In  vain  was  this  eloquent  appeal  for  calmness  on  the  part 
of  the  people  of  Minnesota  and  for  justice  for  any  Indians  who 
were  not  found  guilty  of  participating  in  the  massacres.  On 
December  6,  Sibley  reported  to  the  commander  of  the  depart- 
ment as  follows:  "About  n  o'clock  on  the  night  of  the  4th 
instant  the  guard  around  the  Indian  prisoners  at  Camp  Lincoln 
were  assaulted  by  nearly  200  men  who  attempted  to  reach  the 
prisoners,  with  the  avowed  intention  of  murdering  the  con- 
demned prisoners."  Two  days  later  he  reported:  "Combina- 
tions, embrasing  thousands  of  men  in  all  parts  of  the  State, 
are  said  to  be  forming,  and  in  a  few  days  our  troops,  with  the 
Indian  prisoners,  will  be  literally  besieged.  I  shall  concentrate 
all  the  men  at  Mankato.  But  should  the  President  pardon 
the  condemned  Indians,  there  will  be  a  determined  effort  to 
get  them  in  possession,  which  will  be  resented,  and  may  cause 
the  lives  of  thousands  of  our  citizens.  Ask  the  President  to 
keep  secret  his  decision,  whatever  it  may  be,  until  I  have  pre- 
pared myself  as  best  I  can.  God  knows  how  much  the  excite- 
ment is  increasing  and  extending.  Telegraph  without  delay 
to  headquarters."32  The  situation  called  forth  a  proclamation 
from  Governor  Ramsey  in  which  he  asked  the  people  not  to 
show  mob  violence  towards  the  Sioux  prisoners.33 

81  St.  Paul  Pioneer,  Dec.  3,  1862. 

32  Minnesota  in  the  Civil  and  Indian  Wars,  2:290-292. 

33  Records,  Executive  Office,  1858-18^2,  pp.  636-638,  in  archives  in  the  Governor's  office; 
also  published  in  the  Pioneer,  Dec.  7,  1862. 


l6o  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

President  Lincoln  called  for  the  records  of  the  military 
commission  and  after  careful  consideration  of  the  evidence 
decided  that  only  thirty-eight  out  of  the  three  hundred  con- 
demned Indians  should  be  executed.  This  action  called  out 
additional  protests  from  the  people  of  the  State  and  from  Min- 
nesota's delegation  in  Congress.  The  action  of  the  people  of 
Minnesota  provoked  unfavorable  comment  by  the  press  outside 
of  the  State.  The  Pioneer  of  December  7,  1862,  contained  a 
clipping  from  the  Journal  of  Commerce  with  the  heading 
"Minnesotians  Ferocious,,:  "The  act  of  the  President  revoking 
the  sentence  of  death  against  three  hunred  Indians  in  Minnesota 
for  complicity  in  the  recent  murders  in  that  State  has  aroused 
the  indignation  of  the  Minnesotians,  and  the  newspapers 
generally  urge  upon  the  people  to  take  the  matter  into  their 
own  hands  and  deal  out  vengeance  upon  all  Indians  in  the 
State.  The  language  of  the  newspapers  is  intemperate  and 
defiant;  it  could  not  be  more  so  if  they  were  published  in  South 
Carolina.  Is  indiscriminate  slaughter  of  Indians  one  of  the 
reserved  State  rights  of  loyal  Minnesota?"  The  Pioneer  said 
that  the  people  only  demanded  the  execution  of  the  sentence 
pronounced  by  the  military  commission,  and  not  "vengeance 
upon  all  Indians  in  the  State."  The  situation  was  well  stated 
by  the  Pioneer  of  October  8,  1862:  "The  people  have  lost  all 
confidence  they  ever  possessed  in  'friendly'  Indians,  and  have 
not  much  left  in  those  who  style  themselves  'Christian'  Indians. 
If  there  are  missionaries  or  traders  who  are  willing  to  trust 
their  lives  in  the  hands  of  these  'Christian'  or  'friends,'  let 
them  follow  their  proteges  to  the  plains  of  the  far  west,  and 
make  what  they  can  of  them  as  proselytes  and  customers." 

The  date  of  the  executions  was  originally  set  for  December 
19,  1862,  but,  the  time  being  too  short  to  make  the  necessary 
preparations,  it  was  extended  until  December  26,  1862.34  On 
that  day  the  thirty-eight  condemned  Indians  were  executed  on 
one  scaffold  at  Mankato  at  the  signal  of  a  roll  of  drums,  in  the 
presence  of  several  hundred  whites  and  some  Indians.    No  dis- 

34  Lincoln  to  Sibley,  Dec.  16,  1862,  in  Minnesota  in  the  Civil  and  Indian  JVars,  2:292. 


LAST  STAND  OF  THE  SIOUX  INDIANS  l6l 

order  occurred,  the  troops  being  drawn  up  in  the  form  of  a 
hollow  square  about  the  scaffold.35 

Various  estimates  have  been  made  regarding  the  loss  of 
life  and  property  occasioned  by  the  Sioux  outbreak.  The  loss 
in  life,  including  the  soldiers,  was  probably  about  five  hundred. 
Most  of  the  upper  Minnesota  valley  was  desolated  and  almost, 
if  not  quite,  depopulated.36  In  some  counties  provision  had 
been  made  for  the  organization  of  county  government  before 
the  outbreak,  and  such  organization  entirely  disappeared.37 
When  the  Sioux  Commission  was  created  to  consider  claims  for 
damages  arising  from  the  outbreak,  some  2,940  claims  were 
filed,  aggregating  j>2,5oo,ooo.38  Appeals  for  the  relief  of  the 
victims  were  sent  out,  and  churches  in  Illinois,  Indiana, 
Pennsylvania,  New  York,  and  New  England  sent  aid  of  various 
kinds.  Minnesota  contributed  $25,000  to  the  relief  fund.39 
Part  of  the  relief  provided  by  Congress  was  for  some  of  the 
"friendly"  or  "Christian"  Indians.  Contemporary  opinion 
varied  considerably  as  to  the  services  rendered  to  the  whites 
by  these  individuals  who  had  given  up  their  wild  life  and  were 
trying  to  live  according  to  civilized  standards.  There  can  be 
no  question,  however,  but  that  many  of  the  whites  who  survived 
the  massacre  owed  their  lives  to  these  "Christian"  Indians. 
It  should  be  remembered  that  these  Indians  risked  not  only 
their  property  but  even  their  lives  in  trying  to  save  the  whites. 
John  Other  Day  was  a  notable  example  of  this  type  of  Indian. 
At  the  time  of  the  outbreak  he  was  living  in  a  comfortable 
dwelling  near  the  Minnesota  river,  had  his  land  well  fenced, 
and  had  a  good  crop  of  corn  and  potatoes.  When  he  heard  of 
the  massacre  he  took  instant  action  to  save  the  whites.  He 
assembled  sixty-two  men,  women,  and  children,  and  conducted 
them  some  one  hundred  fifty  miles  to  safety.    Needless  to  say, 

35  Sibley  to  Lincoln,  Dec.  27, 1 862,  in  Minnesota  in  the  Civil  and  Indian  Wars,  2 1302.  Also 
published  in  the  Pioneer,  Dec.  28,  1862. 

36  Minnesota  History  Bulletin,  1 :46o. 

37  Instances  of  this  are  revealed  in  the  archives  of  the  Governor's  office. 

38  Bryant,  and  Murch,  A  History  of  the  Great  Massacre  by  the  Sioux  Indians  in  Minnesota, 
421. 

39  Ihid,43S. 


l6l  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

all  his  property  was  destroyed  by  the  Indians  who  were  on  the 
war  path.  Congress  later  appropriated  $2,500  to  reimburse  him 
for  the  loss,  but  this  was  generally  regarded  as  inadequate  to 
compensate  him  fully.40  No  doubt  there  were  many  instances 
where  the  "friendly''  Indians  risked  their  all  for  the  ideal  that 
had  been  held  before  them  by  the  missionaries.  For  want  of 
historical  evidence  individual  recognition  cannot  be  given,  and 
their  story  must  remain  largely  an  unwritten  chapter  in  the 
history  of  the  frontier.  One  of  the  saddest  features  of  the  whole 
affair  was  that  when  punishment  was  inflicted  upon  the  Sioux 
it  fell  chiefly  upon  the  innocent  "farmer"  Indians.  The  incon- 
sistency of  the  United  States  Government  in  its  dealings  with 
the  Indians  was  fully  revealed  in  the  punishment  placed  upon 
the  Sioux  "nation."  The  government  made  war  upon  the 
Sioux,  took  prisoners  of  war,  and  then  tried  and  executed  them 
for  murder.  Not  only  this,  but  those  who  were  not  convicted 
of  participating  in  the  massacres  were  punished  by  having 
their  property  confiscated,  being  removed  from  the  State  of 
Minnesota,  and  taken  to  a  new  reservation  on  the  Missouri 
river.41  It  is  the  old  story  of  the  triumph  of  civilization  over 
savagery,  a  triumph  of  necessity  accompanied  by  injustice 
to  the  inferior  race. 

There  still  remained  the  task  of  pursuing  and  chastising  the 
Sioux  who  had  escaped  to  the  western  plains.  For  this  purpose 
expeditions  were  organized  in  1863  and  1864.  Little  Crow 
himself  deserted  the  bands  on  the  Missouri,  wandered  back  to 
the  Minnesota  valley  during  the  summer  of  1863,  and  was  shot 
near  Hutchinson,  Minnesota,  on  July  6,  1863.42  The  plan  of 
campaign  for  1863  involved  two  expeditions,  one  under  Sibley 
and  the  other  under  Sully.    The  former  was  to  go  up  the  Min- 

40  Sibley,  "Sketch  of  John  Other  Day,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  3:99-102. 

41  Paxson,  The  Last  American  Frontier,  239-240.  Also  Bryant  and  Murch,  A  History  of 
the  Great  Massacre  by  the  Sioux  Indians  in  Minnesota,  470-482.  Also  Minnesota  History  Bulletin, 
2:422. 

42  A  letter  dated  July  6,  1863,  and  signed  "J.  W.  M.,"  describing  the  killing  of  Little  Crow 
was  published  in  the  St.  Paul  Daily  Press,  July  10,  1863. 


LAST  STAND  OF  THE  SIOUX  INDIANS  1 63 

nesota  river  and  drive  the  Sioux  westward;  the  latter  was  to 
go  up  the  Missouri  river  and  head  them  off.  It  was  hoped  that 
this  plan  would  cut  the  Minnesota  Sioux  off  from  communica- 
tion with  the  Dakota  Sioux  and  would  make  possible  the  crush- 
ing of  the  former  between  these  two  military  forces.  Sibley, 
with  a  force  of  about  3,000,  of  whom  1,000  were  cavalry,  ad- 
vanced up  the  Minnesota  river  and  headed  for  the  region  of 
Devil's  Lake.  He  drove  the  Indians  before  him,  either  across 
the  Missouri  or  into  the  British  possessions.  Sully's  expedition 
up  the  Missouri  was  delayed,  however,  and  the  campaign  as  a 
whole  was  not  successful.  The  battle  of  Big  Mound  was  fought 
by  Sibley's  force  on  July  24,  and  the  battle  of  Stony  Lake  on 
July  28,  1863.  The  latter  was  the  most  important  battle 
fought  on  the  northwestern  frontier.  There  were  probably 
2,500  Indian  warriors  engaged  in  the  battle  of  Stony  Lake,  and 
their  defeat  no  doubt  had  a  good  effect  on  the  Indians  of  the 
Dakota  region.  The  force  was  scattered  but  not  destroyed, 
and  this  made  necessary  another  campaign  in  1864.  The 
latter  campaign  also  failed  to  crush  the  Sioux  completely.43 
It  was  believed  that  the  Indians  received  not  only  refuge  in 
British  territory,  but  actual  assistance  from  British  traders. 
In  his  report  of  the  expedition  of  1864,  Sibley  regarded  this 
situation  as  largely  responsible  for  the  continuance  of  hostilities 
on  the  part  of  the  Indians.  He  stated  tha^t  "the  British  Govern 
ment  still  permits  her  majesty's  territories  to  be  made  a  refug 
of  the  murdering  bands  who  disturb  the  peace  of  our  frontier, 
from  the  pursuit  of  the  troops  under  my  command,  and  these 
savages  are  in  constant  and  open  communication  with  British 
traders,  who  furnish  them  with  ammunition  and  other  articles 
with  which  to  carry  on  the  war  with  our  government  without 
lot  or  hindrance  by  the  local  authorities.  Indeed,  the  half- 
breed  subjects  of  her  Britannic  Majesty  traverse  our  own  do- 
main in  every  direction  for  purposes  of  trading  and  hunting, 
and  are  thus  directly  interested  in  the  continuance  of  hostilities 
between  us  and  the  upper  bands  of  Sioux  Indians,  and  it  is 

43  Bryant  and  Murch,  A  History  of  the  Great  Massacre  by  the  Sioux  Indians  in  Minnesota, 
491.    Also  Minnesota  in  the  Civil  and  Indian  fVars,  2:297-304;  310. 


164  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

known  that  they  foment  discontent  with  the  Chippewas  with 
whom  they  come  in  contact  by  representation  that  they  are 
defrauded  by  the  United  States  Government  by  payment  in 
paper  instead  of  coin,  of  the  money  due  them  under  the  treaty 
stipulations/'44 

Occasional  raids  into  Minnesota  occurred  during  1863  and 
1864  and  caused  very  much  dissatisfaction  on  the  part  of  many 
settlers  of  Sibley's  management  of  the  frontier  situation.  The 
raiding  bands  were  small  and  succeeded  in  slipping  through 
Sibley's  lines  and  committing  occasional  murders  in  isolated 
settlements.  Some  of  the  newspapers  of  the  State  criticised 
Sibley's  disposition  of  troops  along  the  frontier.  Under  date 
of  May  13,  1863,  an  unsigned  letter  was  sent  to  Sibley  calling 
upon  him  to  resign  his  command  and  let  someone  have  it  who 
could  give  adequate  protection.45  The  settlers  were  unreason- 
able in  that  they  expected  Sibley  with  the  small  force  under 
his  command  to  guard  adequately  every  frontier  settlement  at 
all  times.  Governor  Miller,  of  Minnesota,  recognized  that 
Sibley's  force  was  "not  sufficient  to  protect  the  six  or  seven 
hundred  miles  of  frontier  which  is  exposed  to  savage  raids,"  and 
asked  Secretary  of  War  Stanton  to  increase  the  number  of  men 
in  Sibley's  command. 

With  the  closing  of  the  Civil  War  in  1865  the  Indian  hostili- 
ties were  gradually  brought  to  a  close.  Sibley  closed  his  mili- 
tary career  in  1865  and  retired  to  private  life.  WTith  the  passing 
of  time  the  people  of  Minnesota  generally  recognized  both  the 
difficulties  under  which  Sibley  worked  and  the  ability  with 
which  he  solved  the  problems  which  confronted  him  in  over- 
coming the  last  desperate  stand  of  the  Sioux  for  the  possession  of 
the  soil  of  Minnesota. 

44  7^,2:525-526. 

46  "The  enclosures  are  sent  you  to  show  you  the  feeling  of  the  press.  They  show  but  faintly 
the  indignation  of  an  outraged  people  who  charge  upon  you  the  blood  of  hundreds  of  poor 
murdered  victims.  If  you  will  not  punish  the  Indians  why  for  God's  sake  dont  you  resign  & 
let  some  one  have  your  place  who  will  save  this  country  from  desolation  from  the  savages.  Will 
you  not  do  something  to  atone  for  causing  by  your  neglect  so  many  murders?  The  circulars 
are  from  two  Republican  &  two  Democratic  papers.  Read  and  profit  by  it."  This  letter  is 
found  among  the  Sibley  Papers.  The  clippings  are  also  found  with  the  letter  and  were  from  the 
Mankato  Union,  the  Winnebago  City  Homestead,  the  Faribault  Central  Republican,  and  the 
LeSueur  Statesman.    The  St.  Paul  Pioneer,  as  usual,  defended  Sibley  against  these  attacks. 


CHAPTER  XI 

PIONEER  DREAMS  COME  TRUE 

Although  the  most  important  part  of  Sibley's  career  closed 
with  his  retirement  from  the  army,  yet  many  years  of  useful- 
ness remained  to  him,  and  he  was  active  and  public  spirited 
practically  until  the  time  of  his  death.  As  a  sequel  to  his 
military  career,  he  was  a  member  of  the  Commission  which 
negotiated  the  treaties  of  peace  with  the  Sioux  in  1865  and 
1866  at  Council  Bluffs  and  Sioux  City.1  Most  of  the  remaining 
years  of  his  life  were  given  to  private  business.  He  was  presi- 
dent of  the  St.  Paul  Gas  Light  Company,  president  of  the 
Minnesota  Mutual  Life  Insurance  Company,  of  St.  Paul, 
which  later  consolidated  with  the  Northwestern  Mutual  Life 
Insurance  Company,  of  Milwaukee,  and  also,  for  a  time,  presi- 
dent of  the  St.  Paul  City  Bank.  His  private  business,  however, 
did  not  prevent  his  rendering  service  to  the  community  in  which 
he  lived.  He  was  president  of  the  Chamber  of  Commerce,  of 
St.  Paul,  for  many  years,  retiring  at  his  own  request,  in  1880, 
and  with  the  regrets  of  members  of  the  organization.  The 
most  important  public  services  which  he  rendered  to  the  State, 
after  1865,  were  as  a  representative  in  the  State  legislature, 
for  one  term,  and  as  a  regent  of  the  University  of  Minnesota, 
a  position  which  he  held  by  appointment  from  successive 
Governors,  all  of  whom  were  Republicans.2  He  was  President 
of  the  Board  of  Regents  from  1876  until  the  close  of  his  active 
career.  In  1876  he  tendered  his  resignation,  but,  at  the  earnest 
request  of  the  Governor,  J.  S.  Pillsbury,  and  the  President  of 

1  Documents  relating  to  this  subject  are  published  in  West,  Sibley,  338-342. 

2  His  commissions  as  Regent  of  the  University  of  Minnesota  are  in  the  Sibley  Papers 
(Misc.). 

165 


l66  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

the  University,  W.  W.  Folwell,  he  consented  to  continue  his 
services.3 

Sibley's  term  in  the  State  legislature  was  in  187 1,  at  a  time 
when  strenuous  efforts  were  being  made  to  bring  about  a 
settlement  of  the  State  Railroad  question.  For  some  years 
after  the  adoption  of  the  amendment  prohibiting  any  action 
looking  towards  a  settlement  without  a  referendum  to  the 
electors  of  the  State,  nothing  was  done.  In  1867,  a  plan  was 
suggested  which  seemed  to  open  a  way  for  the  payment  of  the 
bonds.  It  was  discovered  that  an  act  of  Congress,  in  1841, 
had  provided  for  a  grant  of  500,000  acres  of  land  to  certain 
States  for  internal  improvements  and  that  Minnesota  was 
entitled  to  such  a  grant.  Governor  Marshall  recommended  that 
the  proceeds  from  the  sale  of  these  lands  be  used  for  the  settle- 
ment of  the  railroad  indebtedness.  Sibley,  through  the  columns 
of  the  Pioneer,  argued  in  favor  of  the  plan  and  appealed  to  the 
people  to  seize  this  opportunity  to  clear  the  reputation  of  the 
State  from  the  charge  of  repudiation.4  This  proposition  was 
rejected  at  the  time,  and  in  1870  Sibley  accepted  a  seat  in  the 
lower  house  of  the  legislature  for  the  purpose  of  trying  to 
influence  that  body  to  take  favorable  action  on  the  question. 
On  February  4,  1871,  he  introduced  a  resolution  in  favor  of  a 
just  and  fair  settlement  with  bond-holders,  and  four  days  later 
he  delivered  a  speech  in  which  he  admitted  that  he  was  advo- 
cating the  unpopular  side  of  the  question  and  also  that  one  of 
his  objects  in  coming  to  the  legislature  was,  as  he  said,  "to 
vindicate  myself  and  the  administration  of  which  I  was  chief 
from  the  numerous  and  baseless  charges  which  have  been 
made  from  time  to  time  through  a  long  series  of  years,  of  fraud, 
or  to  say  the  least,  of  irregularity  in  placing  these  State  obliga- 
tions in  the  possession  of  railroad  companies,  as  required  by 

3  "General:  On  receiving  your  letter  on  Saturday  I  went  at  once  to  Governor  Pillsbury  and 
begged  him  on  behalf  of  the  faculty  not  to  accept  your  resignation.  Your  retirement  from  the 
board  at  this  time  would  be  a  great  calamity  to  the  institution.  No  new  man,  however  great 
his  natural  abilities,  can  perform  the  services  which  your  long  experience  and  acquaintance  with 
the  affairs  of  the  University  enable  you  easily  to  render.  Your  place  cannot  be  filled.  .  .  . 
Folwell  to  Sibley,  May  ai,  1876. 

4  St.  Paul  Pioneer ,  May  1,  1867. 


PIONEER  DREAMS  COME  TRUE  l6j 

the  amendment  to  the  fundamental  law."  He  recited  briefly 
the  history  of  the  whole  question,  including  his  stand  in  favor 
of  prior  lien  bonds  until  the  mandamus  was  issued  by  the 
Supreme  Court.  "This  is  the  only  phase  in  the  history  of  the 
case,"  he  said,  "which  has  left  behind  it  a  feeling  on  my  part 
of  dissatisfaction.  I  then  doubted,  and  the  doubt  has  since 
increased  until  it  has  become  almost  a  certainty,  whether  the 
action  of  the  Supreme  Court  was  not  an  infringement  upon  the 
rights  and  responsibilities  of  a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the  State 
Government."  Sibley  stated  that  the  Attorney  General  at  the 
time  informed  him  that  he  was  estopped  from  denying  the 
authority  of  the  Supreme  Court  after  having  instructed  the 
Attorney  General  to  appear  in  behalf  of  the  State.  He  also 
said  that  he  did  everything  in  his  power  as  governor  to  guard 
the  security  of  the  State,  and  that  "in  no  instance  were  State 
bonds  issued  to  the  respective  companies  until  they  had  com- 
plied with  every  prescribed  condition."  He  stated  it  as  his 
belief  that  the  bonds  would  have  been  placed  with  responsible 
banking  firms  in  New  York  and  that  the  plan  for  the  construc- 
tion of  the  roads  might  have  been  successful  except  for  the 
violence  with  which  the  Republican  press  of  the  State  attacked 
them.5  He  also  stated  that  the  affairs  of  the  railroad  companies 
were  better  managed  than  had  generally  been  believed.6  He 
closed  his  speech  with  an  appeal  to  the  people  of  the  State  to  be 
honest  in  meeting  their  legal  obligations. 

At  the  preceeding  session  of  the  legislature,  an  act  was 
passed  authorizing  the  use  of  the  500,000  acres  of  land,  as 
Governor  Marshall  had  recommended  in  1867,  but,  upon  its 

5  In  speaking  of  his  trip  East  to  help  place  the  bonds  Sibley  said:  "I  remained  there  two 
months  at  my  own  cost.  ...  I  had  nearly  completed  an  arrangement  with  a  leading  banking 
firm  .  .  .  when  all  my  efforts  .  .  .  were  rendered  abortive  by  a  furious  editorial  in  the  Minne- 
sotian,  which  was  sent  to  the  firm  .  .  .  denouncing  in  the  most  violent  terms,  the  bonds  and 
everyone  connected  with  them."  The  Republican  papers  warned  the  capitalists  that  if  they 
purchased  the  bonds  "it  would  be  at  their  own  peril  for  repudiation  was  sure  to  follow." 

6  "They  (the  companies)  have,  in  my  judgment,  been  most  unjustly  denounced  as  swind- 
ling corporations.  .  .  .  They  never  received  a  State  bond  which  they  had  not  fairly  earned  and 
if  they  failed  in  their  engagements,  it  was  owing  to  the  fact  that  the  bonds  upon  which  they 
depended  mainly  to  secure  means  to  prosecute  their  work,  were  turned  to  ashes  in  their  grasp, 
and  rendered  valueless  by  the  unholy  war  waged  upon  them  by  our  own  citizens." 


l68  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

being  referred  to  the  electors  as  provided  in  the  constitutional 
amendment,  it  was  rejected.  The  legislature  in  1871  passed 
an  act  again  submitting  a  plan  of  settlement,  but  it  also  was 
rejected.  In  1876,  Governor  Cushman  K.  Davis,  in  his  last 
message  to  the  legislature,  urged  that  some  settlement  be  made 
with  the  bond-holder.  "Let  us  meet  our  responsibilities," 
he  said,  "as  becomes  a  great  state  holding  her  honor  dearer 
than  anything  else.  There  is  a  higher  rule  of  action  which 
requires  that  states,  no  less  than  men,  shall  do  justice,  no  matter 
how  onerous  the  responsibility  and  the  performance."7  Gover- 
nor Davis  was  succeeded  by  Governor  J.  S.  Pillsbury,  and  the 
latter  made  it  a  chief  object  of  his  administration  to  secure  a 
settlement  of  this  question.  Again  and  again  he  urged  that 
Minnesota  make  some  plan  of  settlement  and  clear  her  good 
name  from  the  disgrace  of  repudiation.  Finally,  in  1880,  the 
bond-holders,  chief  of  whom  was  Selah  Chamberlain,  offered 
to  settle  with  the  State  at  fifty  cents  on  the  dollar.  Governor 
Pillsbury,  on  January  6,  1881,  again  appealed  to  the  legislature 
to  take  action.  "I  implore  the  people  of  Minnesota,"  he  said, 
"and  you,  gentlemen,  their  representatives,  to  seize  this  last 
opportunity,  before  it  is  too  late,  to  wipe  out  this  only  blot  from 
the  fair  name  of  our  beloved  state."8  As  it  seemed  impossible 
to  get  any  settlement  under  the  repudiating  amendment  to 
the  constitution,  the  legislature  passed  an  act  for  the  creation 
of  a  special  tribunal  to  pass  upon  the  question  as  to  the  binding 
power  of  the  repudiating  amendment.  After  some  difficulty  in 
getting  judges  to  serve  on  this  tribunal,  and  after  its  competency 
had  been  challenged,  the  Supreme  Court  finally  decided  that  the 
repudiating  amendment  was  against  the  spirit  of  the  provision 
of  the  United  States  Constitution  prohibiting  a  state  from 
impairing  the  obligation  of  a  contract.  The  legislature  then 
passed  an  act  authorizing  the  issue  of  a  special  series  of  bonds 
known  as  "Minnesota  state  railroad  adjustment  bonds,"  and 
a  bill  for  the  use  of  the  proceeds  of  the  500,000  acres  of  internal 

7  Executive  Documents,  State  of  Minnesota,  1878,  41-42. 
*/£*7/,  1881,  29' 


PIONEER  DREAMS  COME  TRUE  169 

improvement  land.  The  latter  act  was  referred  to  the  electors, 
and  received  a  vote  of  31,011  for,  and  13,589  against,  in  an 
election  where  the  total  vote  cast  was  150,484.  On  this  basis, 
the  State  then  accepted  the  offer  of  settlement  at  fifty  cents  on 
the  dollar,  together  with  the  accrued  interest,  and  at  last  the 
dream  of  the  leading  men  to  see  Minnesota's  reputation  cleared 
from  the  stain  of  repudiation  was  a  reality.9  An  unbiased 
study  of  the  whole  question  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  Sibley's 
motives  were  honorable  throughout,  and  that  it  was  unjust  to 
his  administration  to  place  so  much  blame  for  the  five  million 
loan  episode  as  was  done  at  the  time  by  the  press  hostile  to  his 
administration.  When  he  gave  in  to  the  mandamus  proceed- 
ings he  committed  the  only  act  for  which  he  can  be  blamed, 
but  even  then  he  was  doing  what  the  people  of  the  State  proba- 
bly wanted  done.  It  is  the  old  story  that  there  must  be  a 
scape-goat  for  every  great  undertaking  which  does  not  succeed, 
and  it  fell  to  Sibley  to  play  the  part  of  the  scape-goat.  Although 
the  State  was  strongly  republican  after  i860,  and  Sibley  was  a 
Democrat,  and  it  is  impossible  to  state  what  Sibley's  career 
might  have  been  without  this  episode,  still  it  seems  reasonable 
to  conclude  that  the  railroad  bond  question  injured  Sibley's 
standing  in  the  political  life  of  the  State. 

Railroad  construction  went  forward  by  leaps  and  bounds 
in  the  decade  following  the  Civil  War,  and  when  the  people 
began  to  feel  that  railroads  were  a  reality  they  found  that 
unjust  discriminations  and  exorbitant  freight  rates  deprived 
them  of  many  of  the  advantages  which  they  had  hoped  to 
secure  by  having  an  outlet  for  their  surplus  products.  As  a 
result,  the  Granger  movement  received  considerable  support 
from  the  farmers  of  Minnesota.10  In  spite  of  the  difficulties 
over  the  adjustment  of  railroad  rates,  however,  and  even  in 
spite  of  the  effects  of  the  Panic  of  1 873,  the  two  decades  fol- 
lowing the  Civil  War  witnessed  a  marvelous  growth  of  Minne- 

9  The  last  bonds  which  were  exchanged  for  the  Railroad  Bonds  were  paid  in  1910  and  th 
question  was  then  finally  settled. 

lc  See  Buck,  Granger  Movement,  in  Harvard  Historical  Series. 


I70  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

sota.  The  population  which  in  i860  had  been  only  172,023 
increased  to  439,706  in  1870,  to  780,773  in  1880,  and  by  1890, 
about  the  time  of  Sibley's  death,  was  1,501,826.  The  develop- 
ment of  agriculture  and  mining  was  as  remarkable  as  the 
growth  in  population.  The  labors  of  the  pioneers  to  carve 
out  of  the  wilderness  a  great  State  had  been  rewarded  with 
success,  and  the  pioneer  dreams  had  come  true. 

The  last  years  of  Sibley's  life  were  peaceful  and  happy. 
The  period  of  "storm  and  stress"  was  over,  and  the  bitterness 
of  the  rivalries  of  pioneer  days  was  gone.  The  people  of  the 
State  generally  recognized  the  greatness  of  his  work,  and  he 
was  regarded  as  "the  first  citizen  of  Minnesota."  One  of  the 
most  pleasant  social  events  of  his  later  years  was  the  banquet 
given  in  his  honor,  on  November  7,  1884,  celebrating  the 
semi-centennial  anniversary  of  his  advent  into  the  upper  Mis- 
sissippi country.  Among  the  guests  were  the  most  distinguished 
men  and  women  of  Minnesota.  A  brief  address  was  made  by 
Ex.  Governor  C.  K.  Davis,  and  Sibley  replied  to  it,  closing 
his  remarks  with  the  following  words:  "My  public  and  private 
record  has  been  made  up,  and  faulty  and  imperfect  as  it  may 
be,  it  is  now  too  late  to  alter  or  amend  it.  I  thank  God  that  he 
has  spared  me  to  see  the  fiftieth  anniversary  of  my  advent  to 
what  is  now  Minnesota,  and  to  witness  the  transformation  of 
this  region  from  a  howling  wilderness,  tenanted  alone  by  wild 
beasts  and  savage  men,  into  a  proud  and  powerful  common- 
wealth; and  I  especially  thank  Him  for  surrounding  me  in  the 
evening  of  my  days  with  troops  of  loving  friends  of  both  sexes, 
who  overlook  my  many  imperfections  in  their  desire  to  smooth 
my  pathway  to  the  grave.  It  is  a  great  consolation  to  me  that 
I  can  leave  my  children  the  heritage  of  an  honest  name,  and  to 
my  many  friends  a  remembrance,  not  only  of  my  devotion  to 
them,  but  of  my  earnest  and  long-continued  labors  to  advance 
the  interests  and  welfare  of  our  beloved  Minnesota.  .  .  ."n 

Thus  surrounded  by  admiring  friends,  Sibley  spent  the 
evening  of  his  life  by  his  fireside,  living  over  again  in  his  dreams 

11  Quoted  in  West,  SiUty,  369-370. 


PIONEER  DREAMS  COME  TRUE  IJ1 

the  many  stirring  scenes  of  his  active  career,  and  serenely 
contemplating  the  future.  He  was  always  a  religious  man. 
Brought  up  in  a  home  which,  while  western,  was  typically 
New  England  in  this  respect,  and  living  so  near  to  nature  as 
he  had  done,  it  could  not  well  have  been  otherwise.  Religious 
sentiments  were  frequent  in  his  writings  and  public  utterances, 
and,  while  even  his  last  years  were  more  or  less  active  ones,  he 
watched  the  approach  of  death  with  quiet  resignation  and 
perfect  calm.  He  died  on  February  18,  1891,  universally 
mourned  by  the  people  of  the  great  State  for  which  he  had 
labored  so  long  and  in  the  making  of  which  he  had  taken  such 
a  distinguished  part. 

Retrospect 
The  aim  of  this  study  has  been  not  only  to  follow  the  life 
of  Sibley,  but  also  to  attempt  to  portray,  as  he  and  other 
pioneers  saw  it,  the  gradual  evolution  of  society  and  industry 
in  the  upper  Mississippi  country.  The  rapidity  with  which 
the  West  was  settled  is  most  vividly  appreciated  when  viewed 
in  terms  of  human  life.  In  1795,  when  Solomon  Sibley  came 
over  the  mountains  to  the  first  American  frontier  settlement 
northwest  of  the  Ohio  river,  the  history  of  the  great  West,  the 
real  American  West,  was  only  in  the  period  of  beginnings. 
Before  his  son  died,  in  1891,  the  frontier  had  disappeared. 
When  Sibley,  in  1834,  made  his  way  into  the  region  which  be- 
came Minnesota  it  was  a  typical  Indian  frontier;  when  he 
died,  Minnesota  was  a  State  with  a  population  of  almost  one 
and  one-half  millions.  As  Sibley  well  said  in  his  later  life: 
"Our  State  has  sprung  into  existence  so  recently  that  a  few  of 
us  yet  living  have  participated  in  or  witnessed  each  step  of  her 
progress  from  pre-territorial  times,  when  a  few  hundreds  of 
men  employed  in  the  fur  trade  were  all  the  whites  to  be  found 
in  the  country,  to  the  present  time."12  The  settlement  and 
development  of  the  region  had  been  so  rapid  that  even  those 
who  had  witnessed  it  could  scarcely  realize  the  transformation 
that  had  taken  place  before  their  very  eyes.     "It  is  scarcely 

12  Sibley,  "Memoir  of  H.  L.  Dousman,"  in  Minnesota  Hisotrical  Collections^  3:194- 


172  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

possible  for  such  of  my  readers,  as  are  not  old  settlers,"  Sibley 
wrote,  "to  appreciate  the  changes  made  within  the  last  two 
decades  in  this  Territory  and  State.  Even  as  late  as  1850  there 
were  neither  bridges  nor  ferries,  and  but  few  common  roads 
other  than  foot  trails  of  the  red  men  who  then  asserted  owner- 
ship of  all  the  country  west  of  the  Mississippi  except  the  mili- 
tary reservation  at  Fort  Snelling.  ...  In  contrasting  such  a 
state  of  things  with  the  present  facilities  for  travel,  exemption 
from  danger,  and  the  luxuries  to  be  obtained  in  all  the  inhabited 
portions  of  the  State,  you  may  be  enabled  to  form  some  faint 
conception  of  the  amazement  with  which  the  transformation 
is  regarded  by  the  old  settlers.  To  me,  I  must  confess,  it  seems 
more  like  a  pleasant  dream  than  a  reality/'13 

The  men  who  had  made  possible  the  great  development 
and  who  had  lived  through  all  the  stages  of  civilization  from  the 
fur  traders'  frontier  were  not  without  hope  as  to  the  future. 
While  they  fully  appreciated  what  had  already  been  done,  they 
believed  that  Minnesota  had  greater  days  before  her,  and  with 
confidence  they  trusted  the  coming  generations  to  build  upon 
the  foundation  which  they  had  laid.  No  more  fitting  close 
can  be  made  to  this  story  of  pioneer  days  than  this  spirit  of 
hopefullness  which  found  expression  in  Sibley's  own  words: 
"The  retrospect,  however  satisfactory  and  indeed  brilliant,  in 
view  of  the  rapid  advance  of  the  State  in  population  and  wealth, 
is  not  without  its  sad  and  melencholy  aspects  to  such  of  the  old 
settlers  as  yet  remain.  We  miss  from  our  companionship 
many  a  noble  specimen  of  manhood  who  struggled  and  fought 
with  us  for  the  prosperity  of  our  beloved  Minnesota.  They 
have  gone  the  way  of  all  the  earth,  and  those  of  us  who  still 
live  are  daily  admonished  that  our  course  also  will  soon  be 
finished.  It  is  a  source  of  great  comfort,  as  the  shadows  of 
death  approach  to  encompass  us,  to  be  assured  that  the  desti- 
nies of  the  commonwealth  we  have  loved  so  long  and  so  well 
will  be  left  in  the  hands  of  a  generation  competent  and  deter- 

18  Sibley,  "Reminiscences  of  the  Early  Days  of  Minnesota,"  in  Minnesota  Historical 
Collections,  3:276. 


PIONEER  DREAMS  COME  TRUE  173 

mined  to  control  them,  with  the  aid  of  a  good  providence,  in 
the  interests  of  morality  and  religion  for  the  welfare  of  our 
children  and  of  the  great  State  and  nation  and  reflectively  of 
the  whole  human  family."14 

14  Sibley,  "Reminiscences  of  the  Early  Days  of  Minnesota,"  in  Minnesota  Historical 
Collections ,  3:276-77. 


CHAPTER  XII 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I.  Manuscript  Material 

Sibley  Papers.  This  material  consists  of  several  thousands  of  papers 
preserved  by  Sibley,  including  his  correspondence,  from  about  1830 
and  is  particularly  valuable  for  the  history  of  the  fur  trade  and  for 
territorial  politics.  After  Sibley  retired  from  Congress  in  1853  he 
remained  in  Minnesota,  for  the  most  part,  and  his  correspondence  is, 
therefore,  not  so  extensive  as  while  he  was  in  Washington.  About  the 
same  time  he  closed  up  his  connection  with  the  fur  trade  and  the 
Papers  cease  to  be  valuable  for  that  study.  These  Papers  contain 
much  valuable  material  for  the  history  of  the  Northwest.  Sibley 
carefully  preserved  his  commissions  of  various  kinds,  maps,  manu- 
scripts of  his  writings,  &c,  and  these  are  to  be  found  in  this  collection. 

Legers,  Journals,  and  Cash  Books  of  the  American  Fur  Company.  These 
are  to  be  found  in  the  manuscript  department  of  the  library  of  the 
Minnesota  Historical  Society,  along  with  the  Sibley  Papers,  and  are 
very  valuable  for  the  history  of  the  fur  trade  in  the  upper  Mississippi 
valley  after  Sibley's  arrival  at  Mendota  in  1834. 

Sibley's  Order  Book,  1862.  This  covers  the  operations  against  the 
Sioux  during  the  campaign  of  1862. 

Ramsey  Papers.  This  collection  of  historical  material  is  also  in  the 
possession  of  the  Minnesota  Historical  Society.  It  contains  many  of 
Sibley's  letters  during  the  period  1 849-1853  and  is  particularly  valu- 
able for  territorial  politics. 

Taliaferro  Papers.  These  papers  belonged  to  Major  Taliaferro  who  was 
Indian  Agent  at  Mendota  from  18 19  to  1840.  They  throw  light  on  the 
Indian  relations  and  incidentally  on  the  fur  trade.  Some  of  Sibley's 
letters  are  there.  This  collection  is  also  in  the  library  of  the  Minnesota 
Historical  Society. 

Archives  in  the  Governor's  Office,  St.  Paul,  Minnesota.  For  a  full 
description  of  these  archives  see  Keller,  Herbert  A.,  "A  Preliminary 
Survey  of  the  More  Important  Archives  of  the  Territory  and  State  of 
Minnesota,"  in  American  Historical  Association  Report,  1914,  1:389- 
402. 
II.  Public  Documents 

The  American  State  Papers,  Indian  Affairs.  Volumes  I  and  II,  under 
titles  such  as  "Indian  Trade,"  "Factories,"  "Agents,"  &c.  furnish 
material  on  the  general  subject  of  Indians  and  the  fur  trade,  some  of 
which  is  valuable  for  this  study.  Volume  II,  pages  54-66  contains 
Schoolcraft's  "Report  on  the  Fur  Trade  on  the  Missouri,  1815-1830." 

174 


BIBLIOGRAPHY      „  175 

Annual  Reports  of  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs.  This  contains  the 
reports  made  to  the  Commissioner  by  the  Superintendents  and  Agents. 
They  are  found  in  the  Reports  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  since 
1849.    They  are,  of  course,  valuable  for  the  study  of  Indian  relations. 

Congressional  Globe.  The  29th,  30th,  and  31st  Congresses  cover  the 
period  of  Sibley's  Congressional  career  as  Delegate  from  Minnesota 
Territory  and  contain  several  of  his  speeches,  together  with  the  debates 
on  the  Minnesota  Bill  and  other  measures  in  which  Sibley  was  inter- 
ested. 

Executive  Documents,  State  of  Minnesota.  These  were  used  for  the  period 
of  Sibley's  governorship  and  for  the  question  of  railroads  in  Minnesota. 

Hodge,  Frederick  Webb,  ed.,  Handbook  of  American  Indians  North  of 
Mexico ,  1  parts,  Washington,  Government  Printing  Office,  1910. 
Valuable  regarding  the  Indians  of  Minnesota. 

Proceedings  of  the  Constitutional  Conventions,  1857. 

Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Minnesota  Constitutional  Convention. 
Journal  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  the  Territory  of  Minnesota. 
Each  convention  kept  a  record  of  its  proceedings  and  these  were 
published  and  are  in  the  Library  of  the  Minnesota  Historical  Society. 

Royce,  Charles  C.  (Compiler),  Indian  Land  Cessions  in  the  United 
States.  1 8  th  Annual  Report  of  the  Bureau  of  American  Ethnology, 
1896-97,  Washington,  D.  C.  1898. 

This  gives  an  account  of  and  maps  showing  all  Indian  land  cessions. 
It  is  very  valuable  regarding  treaties  for  cession  of  land. 

Senate  Documents,  32  Congress,  2  Session,  Vol.  Ill,  Doc.  No.  29.  Indian 
Papers  regarding  Ramsey's  official  conduct  in  disbursing  the  money 
under  the  Treaties  of  185 1  are  found  here.  It  gives  the  evidence  in 
the  transactions  as  brought  out  by  the  investigation.  Since  Sibley 
was  connected  with  the  making  of  the  treaties  as  a  representative  of 
the  fur  company  interests  it  is  valuable  for  this  study. 

Senate  Documents,  1 903-1 904,  Vol.  38.  Kappler,  Charles  T.,  ed., 
Indian  Affairs,  Laws,  Treaties.  The  title  indicates  its  contents  and 
value. 

United  States,  Statutes  at  Large.    Volume  VII  contains  all  the  treaties 
with  Indian  tribes  to  March  3,  1845,  smce  when  they  are  given  in 
the  volume  for  the  year  when  the  treaty  was  made. 
III.  Newspapers 

Pioneer.  (Also  under  the  title  Pioneer  and  Democrat  and  after  September, 
1862,  again  under  the  title  Pioneer.)  Used  for  the  period  1849- 
1865.  This  paper  was  Democratic  in  politics  and  was  usually  favor- 
able to  Sibley.  It  is  valuable  for  the  attitude  of  the  Sibley  faction  in 
territorial  politics  as  well  as  for  the  general  news  of  the  time.  James 
M.  Goodhue  was  its  founder  and  editor  until  his  death.  Joseph  R. 
Brown  was  at  one  time  its  editor. 

Minnesota  Chronicle  and  Register,  1849-1851.  These  were  two  Whig 
papers,  both  started  in  1849,  but  consolidated  in  August,  1849.  ^n 
1 85 1  it  was  absorbed  by  the  Democrat.    These  papers  were  favorable 


I76  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

to  Sibley  while  it  was  believed  that  he  was  a  Whig,  but  were  hostile  to 
him  when  he  announced  himself  as  a  Democrat. 
5°  9335  Shortridge  Diss.  337  9  on  10  R.D. 

Minnesota  Democrat.  This  paper  was  founded  in  the  interests  of  the 
Rice  faction  in  the  Democratic  party.  D.  A.  Robinson  was  the  editor. 
It  absorbed  the  Chronicle  and  Register  in  1851  and  was  finally  consoli- 
dated with  the  Pioneer  and  published  as  the  Pioneer  and  Democrat. 
It  was,  of  course,  hostile  to  Sibley  before  1853  and  is  valuable  as  a 
means  of  seeing  Sibley  as  his  enemies  saw  him. 

Minnesotian.    This  was  a  republican  paper  and  was,  therefore,  hostile 
to  Sibley,  especially  during  the  period  of  his  governorship  and  during 
the  campaign  against  the  Sioux. 
IV.   General  and  Miscellaneous  Material. 

(Note:  This  consists  of  secondary  material,  magazine  articles,  pamphlets, 

articles  in  the  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  &c.     Much  of  it  is 

reminiscent  in  character  and  should  be  used  with  caution.    Other  parts 

are  partly  reminiscent  and  partly  secondary,  and  other  articles  are 

purely  secondary  material.    Articles  or  books  of  especial  merit  will  be 

briefly  described.) 

Adams,  Moses  B.,  "The  Sioux  Outbreak  in  the  Year  1862  with  Notes  of 
Missionary  work  Among  the  Sioux,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collec- 
tions, 9H3I-52- 

Ayers,  Elizabeth  T.,  "First  Settlement  on  Red  River  of  the  North,  1 8 1 2," 
in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections ',  6:421-28. 

Baker,  James  Heaton,  Lives  of  the  Governors  of  Minnesota.  St.  Paul, 
1908.  This  book  was  published  as  volume  III  of  the  Minnesota 
Historical  Collections  and  contains  a  good  brief  account  of  Sibley. 

Baker,  James  Heaton,  "History  of  Transportation  in  Minnesota,"  in 
Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  6:1-34. 

Benedict,  William  A.,  and  Tracy,  Hiram  A.,  History  of  the  Town  of 
Sutton,  Massachusetts,  from  1704.  to  1876,  Worcester,  Massachusetts, 
1878.  This  book  gives  information  regarding  the  Sibley  family  in 
Sutton  together  with  the  ancestry  of  the  individuals  of  the  family 
who  settled  in  Sutton. 

Berghold,  Alexander.  The  Indians'  Revenge;  or  Days  of  Horror.  San 
Francisco,  1891.  An  account  of  the  Sioux  War;  not  particularly 
valuable. 

Bryant,  Charles  S.,  and  Burch,  Abel  B.,  A  History  of  the  Great  Massacre 
by  the  Sioux  Indians  in  Minnesota.  Cincinnati,  1864.  This  is  a  con- 
temporary and  useful  account  of  the  war.  Bryant  prosecuted  claims 
for  several  clients  before  the  Commission  to  examine  claims  for 
damages  done  by  the  Indians.  He  was,  therefore,  in  a  good  position 
to  hear  the  facts. 

Bishop,  Judson  W.,  "History  of  the  St.  Paul  and  Sioux  City  Railroad, 
1864-1881,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  10:399-415. 

Blakely,  Russel,  "History  of  the  Discovery  of  the  Mississippi  River  and 
the  Advent  of  Commerce  in  Minnesota,"  in  Minnesota  Historical 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  1 77 

Collections,  8:303-418.     The  author  was  a  captain  on  a  Mississippi 

river  steamboat  in  the  early  days  and  that  part  of  the  article  dealing 

with  commerce  has  value.    The  other  part  is  secondary  material  and 

not  especially  valuable. 
Boutwell,  W.  T.,  "Schoolcraft's  Exploring  Tour  of  1832,"  in  Minnesota 

Historical  Collections,  1:121-140. 
Bromley,  Edward  A.,  "The  Old  Government  Mills  at  the  Falls  of  St. 

Anthony,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  10:635-643. 
Buell,  Salmon  A.,  "Judge  Flandrau  in  the  Defense  of  New  Ulm,  during 

the  Sioux  Outbreak  of  1862,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections ', 

10:783. 
Chief  Big  Eagle,  "Story  of  the  Sioux  Outbreak  in  1862,"  in  Minnnesota 

Historical  Collections,  Vol.  VI.    This  story  as  told  by  a  participant 

was  taken  down  by  Return  I.  Holcombe  in  an  interview  with  the 

Indian  chief.    It  has  value  as  giving  the  Indian  side  of  the  story  but 

should  be  used  with  caution. 
Chittenden,  H.  H.,  History  of  the  Early  Western  Fur  Trade,  3  Vols., 

New  York,  1902.    This  is  the  best  account  of  the  fur  trade  as  a  whole 

but  deals  only  slightly  with  the  trade  of  the  upper  Mississippi. 
Coman,  Katherine,  Economic  Beginnings  of  the  Far  West,  2  Vols.,  New 

York,  191 2.    This  has  a  good  chapter  on  the  fur  trade  but  does  not 

give  much  on  the  fur  trade  in  Minnesota. 
Crooks,  William,  "The  First  Railroad  in  Minnesota,"  in  Minnesota 

Historical  Collections,  10:445-448. 
Cutter,  William  Richard,  ed.,  Genealogical  and  Family  History  of  Eastern 

New  York.     New  York,  1912.     Volume  II  contains  a  genealogical 

record  of  the  Sibley  family. 
Daniels,  Arthur  M.,  A  Journal  of  Sibley's  Indian  Expedition  during  the 

Summer  of  1863  and  Record  of  the  Troops  Employed.    Winona,  Minn., 

1864.    This  is  a  source  of  the  expedition. 
Daniels,  Asa  W.,  "Reminiscences  of  Little  Crow,"  in  Minnesota  Histori- 
cal Collections,  Vol.  12. 
Davis,  Samuel  M.,  "The  Dual  Origin  of  Minnesota,"  in  Minnesota 

Historical  Collections,  9:519-548. 
DeCamp,  (Mrs.)  J.  E.,  "Sioux  Outbreak  in  1 862,"  in  Minnesota  Historical 

Collections,  6 13  54-3  80. 
Durant,  Edward  W.,  "Lumbering  and  Steamboating  on  the  St.  Croix 

River,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  10:645-675. 
Elfeld,  Charles  D.,  "Early  Trade  and  Traders  in  St.  Paul,"  in  Minnesota 

Historical  Collections,  9:163-168. 
Elaison,  Adolph  O.,  "The  Beginning  of  Banking  in  Minnesota,"  in 

Minnesota  Historical  Collections,   12:671-679.     A  good  account  of 

early  banking  operations. 
Ellet,  (Mrs.)  Elizabeth  Fries,  Pioneer  Women  of  the  West.    New  York, 

1852.    This  book  contains  a  sketch  of  Sibley's  mother.    Sibley  did 

not  believe  that  the  account  was  adequate  and  wrote  to  the  author 

that,  while  it  was  true  as  far  as  it  went,  he  could  not  help  but  think 


I78  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

that  his  mother  would  smile  at  it,  if  she  could  come  back  from  the 
other  world  and  read  the  sketch. 

Fairchild,  Henry  S.,  "Sketches  of  the  Early  History  of  Real  Estate  in 
St.  Paul,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  10:417-443. 

Flandrau,  Charles  E.,  "Progress  of  Minnesota  during  the  Half  Century, 
1 849-1 899,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  9:587-596. 

Flandrau,  Charles  E.,  "Reminiscences  of  Minnesota  during  the  Terri- 
torial Period,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  9:197-222. 

Folsom,  William  H.  C,  "History  of  Lumbering  in  the  St.  Croix  Valley, 
with  Biographical  Sketches,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections, 
9:291-324. 

Folwell,  William  Watts,  Minnesota  the  North  Star  State.  Boston,  1908. 
Dr.  Folwell,  a  former  President  of  the  Univeristy  of  Minnesota,  is  the 
best  authority  on  the  history  of  Minnesota. 

Folwell,  William  Watts,  "The  Five  Million  Loan,"  in  Minnesota  His- 
torical Collections,  15:189-214. 

Folwell,  William  Watts,  "The  Sale  of  Fort  Snelling,  1857,"  in  Minnesota 
Historical  Collections,  15:393-410. 

Gilfillan,  Charles  D.,  "The  Early  Political  History  of  Minnesota,"  in 
Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  9:167-180. 

Gilfillan,  John  B.,  "History  of  the  University  of  Minnesota,"  in  Minne- 
sota Historical  Collections,  12:43-84. 

Hall,  H.  P.,  Observations,  being  more  or  less  a  History  of  Political  Contests 
in  Minnesota,  18^-1^04.  St.  Paul,  1905.  This  book  was  written 
"to  warn  young  men  not  to  abandon  regular  and  legitimate  business 
for  the  purpose  of  securing  a  foothold  in  political  life.  I  frankly  state 
that  all  the  truth  has  not  been  told,  and  it  is  better  for  history,  for 
the  living  and  the  memory  of  the  respected  dead,  that  there  should  be 
some  omissions." 

Hanson,  Marcus  L.,  Old  Fort  Snelling,  1819-1858.  Iowa  City,  Iowa, 
1 91 8.    A  very  valuable  account  of  an  interesting  subject. 

Heard,  Isaac  V.  D.,  History  of  the  Sioux  War  and  Massacre  of  1862  and 
1863.  New  York,  1 863.  The  author  was  a  member  of  Sibley's  expedi- 
tion and  was  recorder  of  the  Military  Commission  which  tried  the 
Indians  who  were  accused  of  participating  in  the  massacres.  He  had, 
therefore,  a  good  opportunity  to  get  the  facts,  but  his  conclusions  from 
the  facts  are  not  always  correct. 

Hildreth,  S.  P.,  Biographical  and  Historical  Memoirs  of  the  Early  Pioneer 
Settlers  of  Ohio.  Cincinnati,  1852.  This  contains  sketches  of  the  lives 
of  some  of  the  ancestors  of  Sibley  on  both  his  father's  and  mother's 
side,  especially  those  who  lived  for  a  time  at  Marietta. 

Hill,  James  J.,  "History  of  Agriculture  in  Minnesota,"  in  Minnesota 
Historical  Collections,  8:275-290.  This  is  a  good  account  of  early 
conditions  by  a  man  whose  interest  in  transportation  would  qualify 
him  to  speak  with  authority  on  economic  conditions. 

Holcombe,  Return  I.,  et.  al.,  Minnesota  in  Three  Centuries,  4  Vols.  St. 
Paul,  1908.    This  is  a  co-operative  work  whose  value  depends  upon 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  I79 

the  author  of  the  particular  volume  in  question.  Volume  II  deals 
with  the  first  part  of  the  period  covered  in  this  biography  and  is  not 
entirely  reliable. 

Hughes,  Thomas,  "Causes  and  Results  of  the  Inkpaduta  Massacre," 
in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  12:263-282. 

Hughes,  Thomas,  'The  Treaty  of  Traverse  des  Sioux  in  1851,"  in  Min- 
nesota Historical  Collections,  10:101-129. 

Johnson,  Daniel  S.  B.,  "Minnesota  Journalism  in  the  Territorial  Period," 
in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  10:247-351. 

Jordan,  John  W.,  ed.,  Genealogical  and  Personal  History  of  the  Allegheny 
Valley,  Pennsylvania.  New  York,  1913.  Volume  I,  pages  308-321, 
gives  a  genealogical  account  of  the  Sibley  family  which  seems  to  have 
been  based  quite  largely  on  the  first  chapter  in  West's  Sibley. 

Kiehle,  David,  "History  of  Education  in  Minnesota,"  in  Minnesota 
Historical  Collections,  10:353-398.  A  good  account  of  the  schools  by  a 
former  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction. 

Kingsbury,  David  L.,  "Sully's  Expedition  against  the  Sioux,"  in  Min- 
nesota Historical  Collections,  8  -.449-462. 

Larpenteur,  August  L.,  "Recollections  of  the  City  and  People  of  St. 
Paul,  1 843-1 898,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  9:363-394. 
Mr.  Larpenteur  was  one  of  the  pioneers  and  lived  in  St.  Paul  until 
191 8.  This  is  a  good  statement  of  facts  by  one  who  lived  through  all 
the  stages  of  civilization  from  Indian  frontier  to  the  present  time. 

LeDuc,  William  G.,  Minnesota  Year  Book,  1851-53.  This  contains 
statistical  information,  together  with  important  facts  not  easily 
accessible  elsewhere  on  conditions  in  early  Minnesota.  The  author 
was  one  of  the  "old  settlers"  who  lived  through  all  stages  of  civilization 
in  the  history  of  the  West.    He  died  in  1917. 

MacDonald,  Colvin  F.,  The  Nation's  Response  in  1862  to  the  Great  Sioux 
Outbreak.  The  author  took  part  in  the  expedition  against  the  Sioux. 
He  gives  a  rather  complete  account  of  the  causes  of  the  outbreak.  In 
the  Minneapolis  Journal,  February  18,  191 2,  the  author  has  an  article 
to  disprove  Confederate  influence  as  a  cause  for  the  outbreak. 

McClure,  Nancy,  "Captivity  among  the  Sioux,"  in  Minnesota  Historical 
Collections,  6:438-460. 

McCourt,  Robert  Shepard,  The  History  of  the  Old  Sibley  House.  St, 
Paul,  1 910.  This  is  the  official  souvenir  of  the  Sibley  House  gotten 
out  by  the  Daughters  of  the  American  Revolution.  It  is  illustrated 
and  gives  many  interesting  facts  regarding  the  old  Sibley  house  at 
Mendota.  It  also  contains  a  sketch  of  Sibley's  life  and  also  sketches 
of  the  lives  of  his  mother  and  wife. 

Mathews,  Lois  Kimball,  The  Expansion  of  New  England.  Boston,  1909. 
This  is  the  best  general  account  on  the  influence  of  the  New  England 
element  in  American  History.  It  contains  some  reference  to  Solomon 
Sibley,  the  father  of  Henry  Hastings  Sibley. 

Minnesota  in  the  Civil  and  Indian  Wars.  2  Vols.  St.  Paul,  1893.  This 
work  was  gotten  out  by  a  board  of  commissioners  appointed  under  an 


l8o  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

act  of  the  legislature,  April  22, 1 892.  Volume  I  is  a  secondary  account 
of  the  part  played  by  Minnesota's  soldiers  in  the  Civil  War  and  in  the 
expedition  against  the  Sioux.  Volume  II  contains  the  sources  upon 
which  I  was  based.    It  is  a  valuable  work,  especially  volume  II. 

Moran,  Thomas  F.,  "How  Minnesota  Became  a  State,"  in  Minnesota 
Historical  Collections,  8:148-184. 

Moss,  Henry  L.,  "Last  Days  of  Wisconsin  Territory  and  Early  Days  of 
Minnesota  Territory,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  8:67-88. 
Mr.  Moss  was  one  of  the  early  lawyers  in  Minnesota  and  was  the  first 
United  States  Attorney  for  Minnesota  Territory.  He  was  in  a  position 
to  know  the  facts,  but  this  account  was  written  many  years  after  the 
events  happened  and,  as  the  author  himself  says,  without  refreshing 
his  memory  by  reference  to  documentary  material.  It  seems  to  have 
been  in  the  nature  of  an  impromptu  speech.  Many  mistakes  of  fact 
occur  in  it  and  it  cannot  be  safely  used  except  where  it  is  checked  with 
and  is  supported  by  other  historical  material 

Murray,  William  P.,  "Recollections  of  Early  Territorial  Days  and  Legis- 
lation," in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  12:103-130. 

Neill,  Edward  Duflield.  History  oj  the  Minnesota  Valley.  Minneapolis, 
1884. 

Neill,  Edward  Duffield,  History  0}  Minnesota.    1882. 

Neill,  Edward  Duffield,  History  of  the  Upper  Mississippi  Valley.  1881. 
The  author  was,  in  his  day,  the  best  authority  on  the  history  of  Minne- 
sota. This  work  is  valuable  except  where  superceded  by  works  based 
on  later  research. 

Patchin,  Sydney  A.,  "The  Development  of  Banking  in  Minnesota,"  in 
Minnesota  History  Bulletin,  2:111-168.  This  is  the  best  account  of 
the  subject  and  was  accepted  as  a  thesis  at  the  University  of  Min- 
nesota. 

Potter,  Theodore  N.,  "Recollections  of  Minnesota  Experience,"  in 
Minnesota  History  Bulletin,  1:419-521. 

Randall,  John  H.,  "The  Beginning  of  Railroad  Building  in  Minnesota," 
in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  15:215-220. 

Relf,  Frances  H.,  "Removal  of  the  Sioux  Indians  from  Minnesota,"  in 
Minnesota  History  Bulletin,  2:420-425.  This  is  a  letter,  written  by 
J.  S.  Wilkinson,  the  Missionary,  who  accompanied  the  Sioux  when 
they  were  removed  from  Minnesota  following  the  uprising  of  1862, 
together  with  editorial  comment  on  it. 

Renville,  Gabriel,  "A  Sioux  Narrative  of  the  Outbreak  in  1862  and  of 
Sibley's  Expedition  in  1863,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections, 
10:595-618.  Renville  was  a  half-breed  and  acted  as  scout  for  Sibley 
in  1863.    This  account  has  value. 

Robinson,  Edward  Van  Dyke,  Economic  History  oj  Agriculture  in 
Minnesota.  Bulletin  of  the  University  of  Minnesota,  191 5.  This  is  a 
very  valuable  account  of  the  economic  development  of  an  important 
industry  and  is  the  best  thing  in  print  on  the  subject. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  l8l 

Rogers,  George  B.,  "History  of  Flour  Manufacture  in  Minnesota,"  in 

Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  10:35-55. 
Saby,  Rasmus  S.,  "Railroad  Legislature  in  Minnesota,  1849-1857,"  in 

Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  15:1-188.    This  is  the  best  account  of 

the  subject  during  this  period. 
Satterlee,  Marion  P.,  "Narratives  of  the  Sioux  War,"  in  Minnesota 

Historical  Collections,  15:349-370. 
Schwandt,  Mary,  "Captivity  among  the  Sioux,"  in  Minnesota  Historical 

Collections,  6:461-474. 
Sibley,   Henry   Hastings,    "Description    of    Minnesota"    (1850),    in 

Historical  Collections,  1 :37~42. 

"History  of  the  Minnesota  State  Railroad  Bonds,"  Pamphlet  No.  16 
in  volume  on  "Five  Million  Loan,"  in  library  of  the  Minnesota 
Historical  Society. 

"Memoir  of  Hercules  L.  Dausman,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collec- 
tions, 3:192-200. 

"Memoir  of  Jean  Baptiste  Faribault,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collec- 
tions, 3:168-179. 

"Memoir  of  Jean  B.  Nicollet,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections, 
1:183-195. 

"Memorial  Tribute  to  Rev.  Gideon  H.  Pond,"  in  Minnesota  Historical 
Collections,  3  -.264-266. 

"Reminiscences,  Historical  and  Personal,"  in  Minnesota  Historical 
Collections,  1:457-485. 

"Reminiscences  of  the  Early  Days  in  Minnesota,"  in  Minnesota  His- 
torical Collections,  3:242-282. 

"Sketch  of  John  Other  Day,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections, 
9:99-102. 

"Speech  before  the  Committee  on  Elections  of  the  United  States  House 
of  Representatives,  December  22,  1848,"  published  in  pamphlet 
form  in  Washington,  1 849.    Also  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections, 

tl  I:69"75- 

"Address  to  the  People  of  Minnesota  Territory,"  published  in  pamph- 
let form,  Washington,  1850.    Also  in  West,  Sibley,  Appendix. 

"Address  of  H.  H.  Sibley, of  Minnesota  Territory  to  His  Constituents," 
published  in  pamphlet  form  in  Washington.    Also  in  West,  Sibley. 

"Inaugural  Address,  June  3,  1858,"  published  in  pamphlet  form. 

"Annual  Message,  1859,"  published  in  pamphlet  form.    All  of  these 
pamphlets  are  in  the  library  of  the  Minnesota  Historical  Society. 
Simpson,  Thomas,  "The  Early  Government  Land  Surveys  in  Minnesota 

West  of  the  Mississippi  River,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections, 

10:157-167. 
Stevens,  John  H.,  Personal  Recollections  of  Minnesota  and  Its  People, 

and  Early  History  of  Minneapolis.     Minneapolis,  1896.     This  is  a 

valuable  book  by  one  of  the  "old  settlers"  and  is  particularly  valuable 

in  this  study  because  the  author,  while  a  Whig,  was  a  warm  supporter 

of  Sibley  during  the  period  of  territorial  politics. 


1 82  TRANSITION  OF  A  TYPICAL  FRONTIER 

Stevens,  Wayne  E.,  "Organization  of  the  British  Fur  Trade,"  in  Missis- 
sippi Valley  Historical  Review,  3:172-202.  This  throws  light  on  the 
fur  trade  in  the  upper  Mississippi  country  before  the  advent  of  Sibley 
to  Minnesota. 

Sweet,  George  W.,  "Incidents  of  the  Threatened  Outbreak  of  Hole-in- 
the-Day  and  Other  Ojibways,  at  the  Time  of  the  Sioux  Massacre  of 
1862,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  6:401-408. 

Texter,  Lucy  B.,  Official  Relations  between  the  United  States  and  the  Sioux 
Indians.  Palo  Alto,  California,  1896.  This  is  an  accurate  and  unbiased 
account  of  the  subject. 

West,  Nathaniel,  The  Ancestry,  Life,  and  Times  of  Henry  Hastings 
Sibley.  St.  Paul,  1889.  This  book  is  good  on  the  ancestry  of  Sibley 
and  is  valuable  because  the  author  had  access  to  Sibley's  manuscript 
autobiography,  which  seems  to  have  been  lost.  Sibley  read  and  ap- 
proved the  work.  The  chief  objection  to  it  is  the  style  and  the  fact 
that  it  idealizes  Sibley  and  makes  him  appear  more  as  a  demi-god 
than  a  human  being. 

Whipple,  Benjamin.  Lights  and  Shadows  of  a  Long  Episcopate.  New 
York,  1902. 

White,  Mrs.  N.  D.,  "Captivity  among  the  Sioux,  August  18  to  Septem- 
ber 26,  1862,"  in  Minnesota  Historical  Collections,  9:395-426. 

Williams,  J.  Fletcher.  A  History  of  St.  Paul  and  of  Ramsey  County. 
St.  Paul,  1876  This  work  is  published  as  a  separate  volume  in  the 
Minnesota  Historical  Collections. 


INDEX 


American  Board  of  Missions,  115. 

American  Fur  Company,  8,  9,  12; 
issue  in  politics,  72,  74;  dis- 
credited, 78. 

Astor,  John  Jacob,  9,  12. 

Bailly,  Alexis,  15,  16,  31. 

Borup,  Charles  W.,  26;  discredits 
Sibley,  78. 

Boyce,  John,  28. 

Boyden,  of  North  Carolina,  opposes 
Minnesota  Bill,  48. 

Brown,  Joseph  R.,  15,  16,  27,  38; 
and  "traders'  paper"  of  1851, 
115;  at  Stillwater  Convention, 
40;  supports  Sibley,  65;  supports 
Olmstead  in  1850,  75. 

Brown,  Orlando,  Commissioner  of 
Indian  Affairs,  101,  107. 

Buchanan,  James,  opinion  regarding 
Wisconsin  Territory,  41. 

Burkleo,  Samuel,  at  Stillwater  Con- 
vention, 38. 

Cass,  Lewis,  4,  46. 

Catlin,  John,  29,  40,  41,  42,  43,  44, 
46. 

Chicago,  description  of  in  1830,  7. 

Chouteau  &  Co.,  24,  26. 

Codification  of  laws  for  Minnesota, 
80. 

Compromise  of  1 8 50, 47. 

Constitutional  Convention  for  Min- 
nesota, 1 27  et  seq. 

Counties,  organized  in  Minnesota, 
69,  123. 

Crooks,  Ramsey,  9,  21;  views  as  to 
Indian  policy,  96. 

Dodge,  Henry  M.,  42. 

Douglas,  Stephan  A.,  introduces 
Minnesota  bill,  52. 

Dousman,  H.  L.,  9. 


Dubuque's  lead  mines,  13. 
Election  of  1850  in  Minnesota,  76. 
Falls  of  St.  Anthony,  13. 
Faribault,  Alexander,  15. 
Faribault,  Jean  B.,  15. 
Five  Million  Dollar  Loan,  132,  135- 

138. 
Free  Soil  Party,  47. 
Fort  Snelling,  12. 
Fox-Wisconsin  route,  13. 
Fur  Company,  transformation  into 

business  establishment,  23. 
Fur  Trade,  amount  of  in  Minnesota, 

25;   barter,   21;   British  control, 

12;  prices  of  furs,  24. 
Fur  Traders,  1 1 . 
Fur  Trading  Posts  in  1826,  13. 
Gaspee,  6. 
Gorman,  W.  A.,  appointed  governor 

of  Minnesota  Territory,  121. 
Goodhue,  James  M.,  63. 
Granger  Movement,  169. 
Great  Britain's  Indian  Policy,  94. 
Haskell,  Joseph,  30. 
Holcombe,  William,  38, 40. 
Hudson  Bay  Company,  31;  use  of 

liquor  with  Indians,  92. 
Indians,  n,  21;  contact  of  races,  91; 

decrease   in    numbers,    96;    how 

they    might    be    civilized,    98; 

policy  of  United  States  regarding, 

92;  "traders'  paper"  of  185 1,  114; 

treaties  of  185 1,  109  et  seq. 
Indian  Credits,  14. 
Indian  Trade,  19-20,  23;  in  connec- 
tion with  treaties,  1 10. 
Indian  Traders,  character  of,  17;  use 

of  liquor,  91. 
Indian  Treaty  of  1837,  22,  27. 


I83 


1 84 


INDEX 


Jones,  George  W.,  delegate  from 
Michigan  Territory,  42. 

Kittson,  N.  W.,  15,  26. 

Laframboise,  Joseph,  15. 

Lambert,  David,  38. 

Land  Claim  Association,  32,  90. 

Land  Office,  at  St.  Croix,  Wisconsin, 
43;  moved  to  Stillwater,  59; 
established  at  Willow  River,  Wis- 
consin, 59. 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  vote  on  Minne- 
sota bill,  51. 

Little  Crow,  152. 

Lumbering  in  Minnesota,  28,  29. 

Marietta,  Ohio,  5. 

Marshall,  William  R.,  nominated  for 
delegate,  126. 

Martin,  Morgan  L.,  introduces  Min- 
nesota bill,  35. 

Mendota,  9. 

Michigan  Territory,  4. 

Michigan,  University  of,  4. 

Military  Reserve  at  Fort  Snelling, 
88. 

Minnesota  Bill,  introduced,  52;  de- 
bated, 53-57;  passed,  58;  ap- 
proved, 60. 

Minnesota  Territory,  election  of 
1848,  45;  organized,  38;  territor- 
ial appointments  for,  60;  ad- 
mitted into  Union,  131;  effect  of 
Panic  of  1857  upon,  124;  move- 
ment for  statehood,  126  et  seq; 
New  England  element  in,  121; 
population  of,  121-22. 

Minnesota,  population  in  i860,  124- 
25;  transformation  from  frontier 
to  statehood,  171. 

Mitchell,  A.  M.,  and  Rice  Contract, 
106,  appointed  Marshall  for  Min- 
nesota, 60;  candidate  for  delegate 
in  1850,71. 

Moss,  H.  L.,  appointed  United 
States  Attorney  for  Minnesota 
Territory,  60;  at  Stillwater  Con- 
vention, 40. 


New  England  Element  in  Minne- 
sota, 121. 

New  England  Town,  method  of 
forming,  3. 

New  Hope  (Mendota),  12. 

Norris,  James  S.,  30;  views  on 
Minnesota  bill,  45. 

Northwest  Fur  Company,  16,  31. 

Ohio  Company,  5. 

Ohio  River  Trade,  6. 

Olmstead,  David,  73. 

Panic  of  1857,  effect  on  Minnesota, 
124. 

Parant,  Peter,  32. 

Penitentiary,  located  at  Stillwater, 
80. 

Pembina,  15,  31,  33- 

Polk,  James  K.,  memorial  to,  38; 
approves  Minnesota  bill,  60. 

Pond,  Peter,  12. 

Pope,  General  John,  in  command 
during  Sioux  War,  151. 

Post  Roads  in  Minnesota,  81,  82. 

Provencalle,  Louis,  15. 

Puritan  Emigration  to  Massachu- 
setts, 2. 

Railroads,  agitation  for  in  Minne- 
sota, 84;  beginning  of  construc- 
tion, 1 39-1 40;  Constitutional 
amendment  for  aid  in  building, 
134,  138;  construction  of,  169; 
land  grants  asked  for,  132-34; 
effect  of  Panic  of  1857  upon,  134; 
Pacific  Railroad  advocated  in 
1850,  83;  State  Railroad  Bonds, 
167  et  seq. 

Ramsey,  Alexander,  appointed  gov- 
ernor of  Minnesota  Territory,  60; 
attitude  towards  State  Railroad 
Bonds,  1 44;  candidate  for  governor 
in  1857,  129;  investigation  into 
conduct  of  regarding  Sioux  Trea- 
ties, 117;  negotiation  of  Sioux 
Treaties,  112  et  seq. 

Red  River  Ox-carts,  33. 

Regulators  on  Iowa  Frontier,  102. 


INDEX 


185 


Renville,  Joseph,  15,  21,  30. 

Republican  Party,  beginning  of  in 
Minnesota,  125. 

Retail  Trade,  in  connection  with  fur 
trade,  23,  25,  26. 

Retrospect,  171-73. 

Rice,  Henry  M.,  candidate  for 
delegate  in  1848,  42;  contract  for 
removal  of  Winnebagoes,  100  et 
seq.;  faction  in  politics,  63;  fac- 
tion gains  strength,  77;  intro- 
duces Minnesota  bill,  127;  moved 
to  St.  Paul,  65;  organized  Demo- 
cratic party  in  Minnesota,  66. 

Riggs,  S.  R.,  in  relation  to  "traders' 
paper,"  115. 

Rolette,  Joseph,  Sr.,  9,  13. 

St.  Anthony,  29. 

"St.  Clair"  built  at  Marietta,  6. 

St.  Croix  County,  Wisconsin,  census 
of  1 840, 30. 

St.  Paul,  beginning  of,  32. 

St.  Peters  River,  9. 

Selkirk,  Lord,  31. 

Sibley,  Henry  Hastings,  of  pure  New 
England  stock,  2;  early  life,  7; 
comes  to  Mendota,  12;  in  lumber- 
ing industry,  28;  justice  of  the 
peace,  34;  candidate  for  delegate 
in  1848,  42;  at  Stillwater  Con- 
vention, 38;  elected  delegate,  39; 
arrives  in  Washington,  47;  ad- 
mitted to  seat  in  Congress,  50; 
faction  in  politics,  6^;  elected 
delegate  in  1849,  66;  announces 
politics,  68;  candidate  for  dele- 
gate in  1850,  71;  views  on  public 
land  policy,  85;  opposes  bill  for 
relief  of  indigent  insane,  86; 
favors  homestead  bill,  86; 
views  as  to  use  of  liquor  in 
Indian  trade,  92;  views  on  Indian 
policy  of  government,  92-93; 
attempted  to  get  enumeration  of 
Indians,  96;  explains  how  Indians 
might  be  civilized,  98;  a  squatter, 


89;  opposes  Rice  Contract,  103 
et  seq.;  retires  from  Congress,  78; 
closed  up  connection  with  fur 
trade,  26;  considered  for  territo- 
rial governor,  120;  candidate  for 
governor  in  1857,  129;  attitude 
towards  Five  Million  Loan,  139; 
criticism  of  attitude  towards 
Five  Million  Loan,  141;  in  Sioux 
War,  150  et  seq.;  close  of  military 
career,  164;  in  state  legislature, 
166;  regent  of  University  of 
Minnesota,  165;  later  life,  165; 
death,  171. 

Sibley  House,  9. 

Sibley,  John,  Mayor  of  St.  Albans  in 
England,  2. 

Sibley,  John,  comes  to  Massachu- 
setts, 2. 

Sibley,  Jonathan,  3. 

Sibley,  Joseph  (I),  2;  (II),  3. 

Sibley,  Reuben,  3. 

Sibley,  Solomon,  4. 

Sioux  War  of  1862,  causes  of,  146- 
49;  beginnings  of  hostilities,  149; 
expedition  into  Dakota,  162-64; 
execution  of  Indians,  160-61 ; 
women  prisoners,  153-55. 

Slavery,  condition  of  Indians  com- 
pared with,  99. 

Sproat,  Ebenezer,  5. 

Sproat,  Sarah  Whipple,  5. 

Squatters,  27, 32;  on  military  reserve, 
88. 

Steele,  Franklin,  28,  29. 

Stillwater  Convention,  37,  38. 

Sutton,  Massachusetts,  3. 

Swiss  settlers  from  Pembina,  31. 

Taliaferro,  Major,  13,  21. 

Taylor,  Joshua  L.,  38. 

Taylor,  Zachary,  makes  appoint- 
ments for  Minnesota,  60. 

Telegraph  line  to  Minnesota,  83. 

United  States,  Indian  policy  of,  92, 
93- 


i86 


INDEX 


Woods,  Major,  expedition  through 
Iowa,  1849, 102-103. 

Walker,  Orange,  29.    . 

Wallace,  James,  note  regarding  Gas- 
pee,  6. 

Wheat,  first  shipped  from  Minne- 
sota, 124. 

Whipple,  Abraham,  5. 


Whipple,  Bishop  H.  B.,  plea  in 
behalf  of  Sioux  Indians,  158-59. 

Wilcox,  N.  Green,  candidate  for 
delegate  in  1850,73. 

Wilkinson,  M.  S.,  38. 

Wilson,  James,  of  New  Hampshire, 
presents  Sibley's  credentials,  47. 

Wisconsin,  boundaries  of,  36. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  BATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN     IflJi^    FlrtE     fFH25     CENTS 

WILL  Bi\s|t.E^B8^  F=t)R  F«ffl9^E  TO  RETURN 
THIS  ~fr  C"  !r* '  -Ifclffc "w* ~  ^  THE  PENALTY 
.WILL  INCREASE  TO  50  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


bti   22  mz 

SEP    23  J932 

APR  14   1943 
APR  21   |948 

OS* 

INTER-LIBHARY 

3 

4JAN'56P^  .*. 

JN»  19S6 

Deceived 

FEB   5'67-5P^ 

LOAN  DEPT. 


SENT  ON  ILL 

DEC  0  4  1997 

U.C.  BERKELEY 

NT* 

Au$4  '5-3  p 
LOAN 


LD  21-50»i-8.-32 


Ft 


48464 


06 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


